PDA

View Full Version : Reptile face in the 5 pound note!!!!!


albie
10-16-2009, 04:22 AM
http://files.myopera.com/Albie/albums/680356/znz.jpg

NOW YOU WILL BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EireEngineer
10-16-2009, 09:17 AM
The eye sees what it wants to see.

Eye-Kon
10-26-2009, 03:23 AM
Doesn't really look like a reptilian but there definately out there.

EireEngineer
10-26-2009, 08:51 AM
They're.

albie
10-27-2009, 05:16 AM
They're.

What so you believe now? Such is the power of my five pound note.:D

EireEngineer
10-27-2009, 12:22 PM
No, just correcting his chronically bad use of grammar and spelling.

albie
10-28-2009, 04:55 AM
You're correcting the grammar of a reptile but you don't believe in them?!!!

EireEngineer
10-28-2009, 07:43 AM
You're correcting the grammar of a reptile but you don't believe in them?!!!
There are a lot of kooks on here, but I doubt even Eyekon thinks he is a reptile.

Eye-Kon
10-31-2009, 11:43 PM
Doesn't look like a reptilian or any kind of reptile symbolism to me. However I still firmly believe with out a doubt reptilians exist and are literally all around us in society. They have thousands maybe even millions of years for a head start in terms in technology. This technology allows them to manipulate us monkeys with out our knowledge and also interact with us with out our knowledge. I'm not going to babble on and pretend like I know exactly how they shape-shift or where there from originally and stuff like that because the truth is I have no way of knowing that kind of stuff. I hate when people try and pretend like they know every thing and exactly how things work etc. Now I'm going to drop some pretty heavy info, I've learned most of it from experiences, not just something I read off the internet. I'm not asking you to believe me I'm just asking you to read it.

From my personal experiences and research I've come to the realization they are much more intelligent then humans (simians) and more devoloped. These two advantages in combination allow for complete dominants and regulation of humans. Reptilians have been here long before humans and after becoming fairly advanced they started moving there society underground to increase there health and life span by avoiding the suns harmful rays. There is also alot more room underground to build huge cities etc. Now I'm not talking about them having there civilizations a few miles underground, no, they are deep with in the earth. Hundreds of miles underground. The surface of the planet is more of a zoo in there eyes. Theres much more going on underground then there is on the surface.

Reptilians feed off negative energy. They enjoy being in the company of someone who is in alot of emotional pain. They completely lack sympathy for others. They actually have a hard time tolerating someone elses joy. I've even seen reptilians subtly shape-shift due to someone being extremely happy around them. They can partially harvest negative energy from someone when they are around them but the main way they harvest this energy is through harvesting the body.

The way this is done is quite extreme. If someone has endured a great deal of emotional or physical pain through out there day then this negative energy will leave some sort of residue per say in said persons body that can be harvested through eating this persons body. Now obviously reptilians don't just go around eating everybody. However what they can do with there amazing technology is a clone a humans body while there sleeping and take that persons soul-matrix out of there original body and put in to a cloned body. This can be done in a matter of minutes with out the person ever being aware it was done to them. It can also be done over and over again. This is one of the main reasons reptilian try to cause emotional distress in peoples lives in subtle and insidious ways. Things like frustration, isolation and hopelessness are great for leaving 'residue' for harvesting. When they consume these bodies they get a very strong high from it probably similar to the effect cocaine or heroin has on humans.

albie
11-02-2009, 05:12 AM
>>The way this is done is quite extreme. If someone has endured a great deal of emotional or physical pain through out there day then this negative energy will leave some sort of residue per say in said persons body that can be harvested through eating this persons body.

How could you know this from your own experience? All you've seen are things in the corner of your eye.

You say this...

>>I've learned most of it from experiences, not just something I read off the internet

Then you say...

>>From my personal experiences and research I've come to the realization

Research how?

Then you give info that you haven't experienced, but assumed or read elsewhere. Yet you state it as fact.

albie
11-02-2009, 05:20 AM
Then you say that you saw a reptile change because of positive energy, implying that it is an effort to keep a human face. Yet you see accounts elsewhere that say that it is a struggle for the reptiles to come through and appear. That they need rituals producing NEGATIVE energy for this to happen. It can't be both.

Even Icke is now saying they don't actually shape shift and that people just see the ghost of a reptile that is possessing the host.

You see so many different stories. I think you're all lying. I've known liars personally and you smell of it. You assume too much and you do it in a way that sounds too sure of yourself, even though you already said you weren't sure. A thing a liar will often do is protest they are not liars even though nobody has accused them of it. I think you are making stuff up and smirking about it right now.

Eye-Kon
11-02-2009, 09:54 AM
Then you say that you saw a reptile change because of positive energy, implying that it is an effort to keep a human face. Yet you see accounts elsewhere that say that it is a struggle for the reptiles to come through and appear. That they need rituals producing NEGATIVE energy for this to happen. It can't be both.

Even Icke is now saying they don't actually shape shift and that people just see the ghost of a reptile that is possessing the host.

You see so many different stories. I think you're all lying. I've known liars personally and you smell of it. You assume too much and you do it in a way that sounds too sure of yourself, even though you already said you weren't sure. A thing a liar will often do is protest they are not liars even though nobody has accused them of it. I think you are making stuff up and smirking about it right now.


I've never said it was a struggle for a reptilian to change in to their true form. The only thing I've assumed is that it can be struggle to keep their human form at times such as times when there around someone who is extremely happy. I don't think being extremely happy around them alone will cause them to shift but I think going from being a bit depressed to all of sudden extremely happy can cause them to shape shift at times. This obviously happens with people sometimes when there thinking about something and then all of sudden they realize something that makes them happy. This could probably be because they were trying to harvest that persons energy when they were a little bit down and then all of sudden they get a surge of positive energy but to be completely honest I don't know any of this for sure, just personal experiences of mine seem to point towards this being the case.

You should really look in to the hollow earth theory its quite interesting. Theres tons of storys of the earth being hollow and how the opening are on the north and south poles. It is also said that shamballah is the biggest city with in the earth and its the capital of the inside. I find it funny how you can't look at the north and south poles on google earth. I've done plenty of research in librarys, the net and just by talking to people. The truth I've accepted is so much different then what were conditioned to believe so of course its going to be extremely hard to accept. I never accepted it myself until I started experiencing reptilian interaction. I don't know for sure there from inside the earth but I do know for sure they are here on earth living amongst us.

albie
11-03-2009, 05:01 AM
>>I've never said it was a struggle for a reptilian to change in to their true form.

Other people have. Everyone seems to have a different story about them. They live in swamps, they are people who transform into reptiles, they are reptiles that change into humans. They need rituals to change, they can change around someone being happy. They are aliens, they are from another dimension, they live underground, they are mutants, they are old inhabitants of this planet, they are dinosaurs. They need to drink blood to stay human, they need to drink blood to change into a reptile etc etc etc etc etc etc.

It's bullshit. You saw V when you were a kid, you heard about Icke, you made stuff up and pretend it all happened before you heard about Icke.

Admit it.

EireEngineer
11-05-2009, 12:43 PM
It is all fairly inconsistant huh?

albie
11-06-2009, 03:51 AM
We know there are liars in the world. We have all met them. They will make up all kinds of crap. Now the internet is a great place for them. They can find big groups of people who are willing to believe AND they can tell their stories to them without the obstacle of being face to face with them. IDEAL for a liar. So, given that the internet, and forums such as these are IDEAL places for liars...where are they?

See any?

Did those people grow up, or die?

Or are the people who claim to see reptiles the liars? It seems bloody obvious that they are the kids in the playground who just bullshitted constantly to make themselves look important. If not, then WHERE have those kids gone?

Out of the Box
11-06-2009, 04:44 AM
We know there are liars in the world. We have all met them. They will make up all kinds of crap. Now the internet is a great place for them.

So is the CIA or Mossad ;)

They can find big groups of people who are willing to believe AND they can tell their stories to them without the obstacle of being face to face with them.

The Internet is also the only place where controversial facts can reach a large audience, unlike the controlled mainstream media and biased academia. In some cases, it is the only place to find certain facts (if you disregard rare controversial books). The idea that mainstream views are always factual and unpopular views are always biased is a silly fallacy and this is perfectly illustrated by the fact that once 99% of all Europeans were certain the earth was flat and laughed at the idea of a round earth.

But I will agree with you on this : there's a lot of nonsense to be found on the Internet. That's one of the reasons I try to use well-sourced books instead of Internet sources as references whenever I can.

It seems bloody obvious that they are the kids in the playground who just bullshitted constantly to make themselves look important. If not, then WHERE have those kids gone?

Some of them may have turned into "sceptics" and just continued lying from a different point of view ;)

albie
11-06-2009, 05:38 AM
Liars wouldn't become skeptics. That would be contrary to their bullshit code. I had a friend who was a liar and he is now a Muslim...hmm. Religion. More bullshit.

Out of the Box
11-06-2009, 05:53 AM
Liars wouldn't become skeptics.

I said "sceptics", with an emphasis on the quotation marks. So-called "sceptics" are people who're really anything but sceptic but who just defend the mainstream account on pretty much everything using mostly authority arguments (but also other strawman arguments) to make their point.

I had a friend who was a liar and he is now a Muslim...hmm. Religion. More bullshit.

Most organised religion is utter BS, however I wouldn't just jumble all religions and religious views together. Especially certain Asian meta-physical philosophies (like Tao or Vedanta) can be a very useful addition to hard science in areas where science does not offer an explanation.

EireEngineer
11-06-2009, 07:58 AM
I said "sceptics", with an emphasis on the quotation marks. So-called "sceptics" are people who're really anything but sceptic but who just defend the mainstream account on pretty much everything using mostly authority arguments (but also other strawman arguments) to make their point.
Actually, the Appeal to Authority and Strawman logical fallacies are two completely different things. I will agree that many in the skeptical community do behave in just the manner you describe, but remember that many in the Alternative Medicine/Flat Earth/Conspiracy crowd behave in just the same manner, refusing to believe anything that modern science has determined. What is more, there is a very real body count caused by this attitude. Trying to treat cancer with homeopathy, autism with chelation, and denying vaccines to children because of bad science have a real effect. This is why many in the skeptical movement feel so passionately about it and act the way they do.



Most organised religion is utter BS, however I wouldn't just jumble all religions and religious views together. Especially certain Asian meta-physical philosophies (like Tao or Vedanta) can be a very useful addition to hard science in areas where science does not offer an explanation.

So basically, this one is the God of the Gaps. Just because science has not explained something yet does not mean that the only possible alternative is the supernatural. I will agree though that the Eastern philosophies tend to be far less harmful than, say, Catholicism. I personally am a deist, so I agree that organized religion is bunk.

albie
11-07-2009, 04:53 AM
Debunkers can be very condescending people, as can believers if you show any doubts whatsoever. But in my experience debunkers are correct 99% of the time when evaluting the evidence. And I rarely find a believer who has checked his evidence beyond reading it off David Icke.com.

But this is beside the point. I really doubt a liar would become a debunker. It's just not exciting enough. Much more exciting to say "I was attacked by a reptile!" That's their nature. So where are they? Where did those liars go? Still waiting for a reasonable answer. I think we all know where they went. Nowhere. They are right here on this and other forums lying their fat asses off. That's 100% logic and we all know it.

That isn't to say that some of the people who saw reptiles aren't telling the truth. But how can you judge the evidence amongst all the bs?

nicayamoss
11-07-2009, 12:57 PM
:rolleyes:I just don't understand why people believe that god created humans, and find it so hard to believe that there is no other life forms he could've created.

nicayamoss
11-07-2009, 01:02 PM
I think one day if it is possible, and expedition should be planned or the Conspiracy Club to see if the land inside earth exists. Open your minds.

Eye-Kon
11-07-2009, 04:38 PM
>>I've never said it was a struggle for a reptilian to change in to their true form.

Other people have. Everyone seems to have a different story about them. They live in swamps, they are people who transform into reptiles, they are reptiles that change into humans. They need rituals to change, they can change around someone being happy. They are aliens, they are from another dimension, they live underground, they are mutants, they are old inhabitants of this planet, they are dinosaurs. They need to drink blood to stay human, they need to drink blood to change into a reptile etc etc etc etc etc etc.

It's bullshit. You saw V when you were a kid, you heard about Icke, you made stuff up and pretend it all happened before you heard about Icke.

Admit it.

Its true, all the theorys about reptilians on the internet are inconsistant with each other but my theory alone is consistant and very plausible. Its more foolish to totally dis-regard the idea of reptilians living amongst us here on earth then it is to consider it. I think theres so much conflicting information on reptilians for a couple of reasons. One reason would be that some people become aware of them and fall victim to there abuse but don't know much about them so they start trying to tell people over the internet about them. They get carried away and start pretending like they know everything about them, they go on to tell people where they come from, there biological features etc. When in fact they know very little. Another reason being that reptilians themselves run alot of what goes on in the world. Media, internet censor-ship, organizations, buisness' etc. Always remember reptilians are extremely intelligent. They know how to manipulate people very easily, condition people to think a certain way. Deception is probably there strongest trait. What they do is throw out a bunch of information on to the internet that conflicts with each other to make the theory seem inconsistant and false. This is generally how anybody or anything dis-credits heavy information that has been released over the internet. Look at all the conflicting evidence with AIDS.

Theres so much dis-info out on the internet about reptilians that its nearly impossible to do any research on them unless you already have a basis to go on. By this I mean you've learned first hand what there capabilitys are and therefore you can better interpret what is true and what isn't. Not only do articles have conflicting information with other articles on the topic but you also have to realize alot of articles mix truth with lies to further confuse the situation. It can be hard to differentiate truth from lies regarding reptilians but there is alot of true information on the internet about them, finding out which information that is, is your job. Don't expect the people in control to do that for you.

Smoke and mirros my friend, smoke and mirrors.

EireEngineer
11-07-2009, 06:04 PM
Its true, all the theorys about reptilians on the internet are inconsistant with each other but my theory alone is consistant and very plausible. Its more foolish to totally dis-regard the idea of reptilians living amongst us here on earth then it is to consider it.
We have heard the theory, we have considered it, and we are not convinced. Besides, I enjoy getting my weakly stipend from Gorthaur the Terrible, even if it is only at the Useful Idiot 4 pay grade....ooops, I shouldnt have said that.
:eek::eek::D:D

Out of the Box
11-08-2009, 05:53 AM
Actually, the Appeal to Authority and Strawman logical fallacies are two completely different things. I will agree that many in the skeptical community do behave in just the manner you describe, but remember that many in the Alternative Medicine/Flat Earth/Conspiracy crowd behave in just the same manner, refusing to believe anything that modern science has determined.

You basically have one group of people accepting ANY that is mainstream and another group of people accepting NO knowledge that is mainstream. Obviously, both attitudes are equally prejudiced.

What is more, there is a very real body count caused by this attitude. Trying to treat cancer with homeopathy, autism with chelation, and denying vaccines to children because of bad science have a real effect. This is why many in the skeptical movement feel so passionately about it and act the way they do.

I don't trust mainstream medicine either. Thousands of people are killed annually by MDs making a bad diagnosis or by treatment going wrong. I myself had a misdiagnosis twice (by different MDs) and one led to an unnecessary operation. Let people decide whatever treatment they want, I say. If they're stupid enough to get themselves killed by refusing treatment or getting involved in very dangerous treatments, I guess that's just natural selection taking place.

So basically, this one is the God of the Gaps. Just because science has not explained something yet does not mean that the only possible alternative is the supernatural.

I don't believe in anything beyond nature, but I do believe there are parts of nature we haven't yet been able to explain from a scientific point of view. Thus, in my opinion the so-called "supernatural" is just a part of the natural world that science cannot or has not explained.

Using philosophy to fill the gaps is the ONLY option to get a complete model as long as those gaps remain. That's why in my opinion it's very useful.

I will agree though that the Eastern philosophies tend to be far less harmful than, say, Catholicism.

Not just far less harmful. Some of these philosophies are actually very beneficial for human consciousness at many levels.

But in my experience debunkers are correct 99% of the time when evaluting the evidence.

It depends on the topic. On some topics, they're actually incorrect 99% of the time.

And I rarely find a believer who has checked his evidence beyond reading it off David Icke.com.

I rarely find a debunker who has checked his evidence beyond reading it off websites like Nizkor.org or PopSci.com.

I really doubt a liar would become a debunker. It's just not exciting enough.

If they have an agenda, they might feel inclined to.

That isn't to say that some of the people who saw reptiles aren't telling the truth. But how can you judge the evidence amongst all the bs?

Of all types of evidence eyewitness testimonies tend to be least credible, so I usually ignore them unless the other evidence demands it.

EireEngineer
11-08-2009, 04:04 PM
You basically have one group of people accepting ANY that is mainstream and another group of people accepting NO knowledge that is mainstream. Obviously, both attitudes are equally prejudiced.

Yes, and I wouldn't claim otherwise. However, the difference is that in the skeptical community we generally want and rely upon proof, rather than belief. Odd discoveries happen all the time in the scientific community, discoveries that are well outside the accepted understanding of things. Those that have merit are tested by other researchers and confirmed, those that arent, fall by the wayside. In the Woo community, they are doggedly held to in evidence to the contrary.

I don't trust mainstream medicine either. Thousands of people are killed annually by MDs making a bad diagnosis or by treatment going wrong. I myself had a misdiagnosis twice (by different MDs) and one led to an unnecessary operation. Let people decide whatever treatment they want, I say. If they're stupid enough to get themselves killed by refusing treatment or getting involved in very dangerous treatments, I guess that's just natural selection taking place.

Yes, mistakes in diagnosis do happen sometimes, and since there is no way to remove the human element from medicine, this will likely always be the case. However. to throw out the baby with the bathwater and disbelieve the science of modern medicine just because some doctors are incompetent is grossly negligent. What is more, those in the public eye like Jenny McCarthy do a real disservice to the public by promoting hysteria and giving out wildly inaccurate information. Very real children are dying of very real diseases thanks to the misinformation of the woo crowd.


I don't believe in anything beyond nature, but I do believe there are parts of nature we haven't yet been able to explain from a scientific point of view. Thus, in my opinion the so-called "supernatural" is just a part of the natural world that science cannot or has not explained.

Using philosophy to fill the gaps is the ONLY option to get a complete model as long as those gaps remain. That's why in my opinion it's very useful.

No, saying "I dont know" and seeking the gaped information is the only way to get a complete model. Trying to trancendentally determine the missing information will at best give you a flawed view of the system in question, and at worst, will lead you in unproductive directions and inhibit your ability to ever find the actual answer. The "God of the Gaps" fallacy refers to more than just deistic explainations.


Not just far less harmful. Some of these philosophies are actually very beneficial for human consciousness at many levels.

Specifically how?
[/quote]

Out of the Box
11-09-2009, 01:26 AM
Yes, and I wouldn't claim otherwise. However, the difference is that in the skeptical community we generally want and rely upon proof, rather than belief.

It all depends on the topic. For example, with regards to 9/11 the "skeptic" community has no proof whatsoever. They base their entire opinion on the belief that the CIA or Mossad couldn't and wouldn't commit such a horrible crime on American soil and all evidence of controlled demolition is simply ignored in favor of the debunked NIST report.

Odd discoveries happen all the time in the scientific community, discoveries that are well outside the accepted understanding of things. Those that have merit are tested by other researchers and confirmed, those that arent, fall by the wayside.

This is only true in some cases. Especially when a topic is politically sensitive or corporate interests are at stake science is often abandoned for pseudo-science. This is especially the case in social sciences, but also in engineering.

Yes, mistakes in diagnosis do happen sometimes, and since there is no way to remove the human element from medicine, this will likely always be the case. However. to throw out the baby with the bathwater and disbelieve the science of modern medicine just because some doctors are incompetent is grossly negligent.

I'm not so sure. In an age when governments are shouting "pandemic" and pushing millions of vaccins for a relatively harmless disease, I find it hard to trust medicine at all. Cancer and HIV treatment seem to do more damage than good and I'm not convinced I'll ever take chemo in case I'm diagnosed with cancer.

No, saying "I dont know" and seeking the gaped information is the only way to get a complete model. Trying to trancendentally determine the missing information will at best give you a flawed view of the system in question, and at worst, will lead you in unproductive directions and inhibit your ability to ever find the actual answer.

Philosophy exists precisely to fill the gaps where science provides no answer. I really don't see why it is better to have an incomplete model than to attempt to complete the model by means of philosophy.

Obviously, any acceptable model should be consistent with the physical universe and not proven wrong by tests.

Not just far less harmful. Some of these philosophies are actually very beneficial for human consciousness at many levels.
Specifically how?

Eastern philosophies like Vedanta and Tao teach you how to find harmony within yourself and with your environment, without forcing you to go to religious services or believe in some inaginary creature in the sky. They help you understand man's place within nature and the way all living things are connected at both a physical and spiritual level.

albie
11-09-2009, 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albie http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/images/clubconspiracy/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f50/reptile-face-5-pound-note-10490-post62511.html#post62511)
I really doubt a liar would become a debunker. It's just not exciting enough.

If they have an agenda, they might feel inclined to.


What possible agenda could a fat/skinny spotty loser fantasist have that make him a debunker of all the things he believes in?

I just think you are lying to yourself about this. You don't have a cogent argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by albie http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/images/clubconspiracy/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f50/reptile-face-5-pound-note-10490-post62511.html#post62511)
But in my experience debunkers are correct 99% of the time when evaluting the evidence.

It depends on the topic. On some topics, they're actually incorrect 99% of the time.



Which topics? Lumps of aluminium that may or may not be 20,000 years old?



>>Quote:
Originally Posted by albie
And I rarely find a believer who has checked his evidence beyond reading it off David Icke.com.

I rarely find a debunker who has checked his evidence beyond reading it off websites like Nizkor.org or PopSci.com.

And therefore it is surely your and their aim to debunk what it on those sites. You rarely see that happen. What you get on 99% of forums and blogs is the same basic arguments that are years old and defunct. None of the arguments of both sides. But on debunking sites you will at least have the theorists' ideas and the debunking. Which is more instructive? Obviously the latter.

Now if people took those debates to the end and we could see where we stood with each theory then we could see how far we have come. But these things only happen on forums like these and they get lost in the space of the web. The same arguments strat up again and again, just like I've seen on here. Pointless.

Out of the Box
11-09-2009, 03:44 AM
What possible agenda could a fat/skinny spotty loser fantasist have that make him a debunker of all the things he believes in?

He could be a staunch defender of Zionism, Democracy, Capitalism, Multi-Culturalism, Christianity and/or other viewpoints and become a "debunker" in an attempt to support his viewpoints.

I just think you are lying to yourself about this. You don't have a cogent argument.

It depends on the topic. On some topics, they're actually incorrect 99% of the time.
Which topics? Lumps of aluminium that may or may not be 20,000 years old?

9/11, the Holocaust and the capitalist oligarchy to name just a few. On these issues they completely ignore the evidence and just parrot the mainstream account ad nauseam, usually combined with insults and a strawman argument here and there.

And therefore it is surely your and their aim to debunk what it on those sites.

I used to do this for several hours a day. Then I started spending my time on more useful activities.

What you get on 99% of forums and blogs is the same basic arguments that are years old and defunct. None of the arguments of both sides. But on debunking sites you will at least have the theorists' ideas and the debunking. Which is more instructive? Obviously the latter.

I see little difference in attitude between "conspiracy theorist" sites and "debunker" sites. Narrowmindedness in combination with arrogance and ignorance prevail on BOTH!

albie
11-09-2009, 04:06 AM
>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by albie http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/images/clubconspiracy/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f50/reptile-face-5-pound-note-10490-3.html#post62558)
And therefore it is surely your and their aim to debunk what it on those sites.

I used to do this for several hours a day. Then I started spending my time on more useful activities.




9/11, the Holocaust and the capitalist oligarchy to name just a few. On these issues they completely ignore the evidence and just parrot the mainstream account ad nauseam, usually combined with insults and a strawman argument here and there.


So you believe you know the final say on theories then? Give it a shot then. Show me the end results.

albie
11-09-2009, 04:44 AM
>>He could be a staunch defender of Zionism, Democracy, Capitalism, Multi-Culturalism, Christianity and/or other viewpoints and become a "debunker" in an attempt to support his viewpoints.


You actually believe that don't you. It's irrellevant to the argument. Even if some natural liars did become debunkers it does not negate the argument that liars will still be posting crap on the web. And the most likely place they would do so is here on this forum. A debunker would not get away with lying to spoil a conspiracy theory.

Out of the Box
11-09-2009, 06:01 AM
So you believe you know the final say on theories then? Give it a shot then. Show me the end results.

On 9/11 :
The pentagon was looking for a pre-text to invade Afghanistan. Because of this, they had the WTC towers collapse by means of nanothermite on live television (inspired by Pearl Harbor). The planes (that DID fly into the WTC, unlike what some people claim) were a diversion to catch the attention of the media and create a shock effect.

On The Holocaust :
Hitler used concentration camps for much the same reason Roosevelt did : to lock up people considered a threat to national security. Forensic tests, Red Cross reports and other evidence shows that there were indeed large death tolls in some of the German concentration camps, however the main killers in these camps were typhus and typhoid. When the allies were carpet bombing German infrastructure, resources could no longer reach these camps making it impossible to stop the pandemic. The film The Relief of Belsen (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0950502/) gives some insight in what really took place and is based on the testimonies of the British soldiers as they liberated Bergen-Belsen.
As rumours existed among Jews that Hitler was killing people with gas chambers, this was soon incorporated in black propaganda, linked to the high death toll and even made it to the Nuremberg show trials. However, there is no evidence that a single concentration camp inmate was ever gassed by the Germans. Neither is there any evidence that Hitler planned to kill all Jews. In fact, the claims that Hitler was exterminating Jews was largely forgotten until the Six Day war when zionists started using it for their own propaganda and the Holocaust Industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry) developed.

On The oligarchy :
A small group of Jewish banking families (Rothschild, Warburg, Loeb, ...) is decidated to dominate the entire gentile world as predicted by Talmudic prophecy. They currently dominate much of the Western world (read "Culture of Critique (http://www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf)" on Jewish influence in the West). They achieved this by means of revolutions (especially the American, French and Russian revolutions) and subversive movements (communism, feminism, "civil rights", ...) but also through the mainstream media (which is almost entirely under their control today) and the manipulation of academic institutes (read "The Diversity Myth (http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=38)" on the politisation of Stanford).

>>He could be a staunch defender of Zionism, Democracy, Capitalism, Multi-Culturalism, Christianity and/or other viewpoints and become a "debunker" in an attempt to support his viewpoints.


You actually believe that don't you. It's irrellevant to the argument. Even if some natural liars did become debunkers it does not negate the argument that liars will still be posting crap on the web.

Obviously. I was just pointing out that you'll find compulsive liars on both sides and not just among so-called "conspiracy theorists".

A debunker would not get away with lying to spoil a conspiracy theory.

They do it all the time.

EireEngineer
11-09-2009, 08:53 AM
It all depends on the topic. For example, with regards to 9/11 the "skeptic" community has no proof whatsoever. They base their entire opinion on the belief that the CIA or Mossad couldn't and wouldn't commit such a horrible crime on American soil and all evidence of controlled demolition is simply ignored in favor of the debunked NIST report.

No, its not that the report is simply believed and all evidence to the contrary ignored...its that the "evidence" is not convincing when taken as a whole.


This is only true in some cases. Especially when a topic is politically sensitive or corporate interests are at stake science is often abandoned for pseudo-science. This is especially the case in social sciences, but also in engineering.
Examples?


I'm not so sure. In an age when governments are shouting "pandemic" and pushing millions of vaccins for a relatively harmless disease, I find it hard to trust medicine at all. Cancer and HIV treatment seem to do more damage than good and I'm not convinced I'll ever take chemo in case I'm diagnosed with cancer.
I will agree that the hyperbole over the current H1N1 virus is a bit overdone. Never the less, H1N1 does in fact kill, and those at the most risk should probably get the vaccine, whether or not you believe in herd immunity. As somone who volunteers for the Race for the Cure every year, I can tell you though that if it wasnt for chemotherapy, most of the women there would not be alive today. Yes it sucks, but so does dying.



Philosophy exists precisely to fill the gaps where science provides no answer. I really don't see why it is better to have an incomplete model than to attempt to complete the model by means of philosophy.

Obviously, any acceptable model should be consistent with the physical universe and not proven wrong by tests.

I would agree to a point, but you would still be plugging in possibly erroneous assumptions that could lead to inaccurate data at the end.


Eastern philosophies like Vedanta and Tao teach you how to find harmony within yourself and with your environment, without forcing you to go to religious services or believe in some inaginary creature in the sky. They help you understand man's place within nature and the way all living things are connected at both a physical and spiritual level.[/quote]

Out of the Box
11-09-2009, 11:12 AM
No, its not that the report is simply believed and all evidence to the contrary ignored...its that the "evidence" is not convincing when taken as a whole.

How is the evidence not convincing? The way the two towers fell is already enough evidence for controlled demolition.

This is only true in some cases. Especially when a topic is politically sensitive or corporate interests are at stake science is often abandoned for pseudo-science. This is especially the case in social sciences, but also in engineering.
Examples?

The most typical examples :

Any study that disagrees with the claim that Hitler was responsible for genocide
Any study that disagrees with the claim that all races are equal
Any research that can replace fossil fuel entirely I will agree that the hyperbole over the current H1N1 virus is a bit overdone. Never the less, H1N1 does in fact kill, and those at the most risk should probably get the vaccine, whether or not you believe in herd immunity.

To my knowledge, there are still less H1N1 deaths than the annual deaths from ordinary flu.

As somone who volunteers for the Race for the Cure every year, I can tell you though that if it wasnt for chemotherapy, most of the women there would not be alive today. Yes it sucks, but so does dying.

I'm not convinced that chemo is more effective than eg. Royal Rife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Raymond_Rife)'s approach.

I would agree to a point, but you would still be plugging in possibly erroneous assumptions that could lead to inaccurate data at the end.

The same is true for any scientific hypothesis that hasn't been proven yet.

albie
11-10-2009, 04:42 AM
Out of the box. I've heard all these arguments before. I have seen them debunked many, many times. I'm pretty sick of your crap by now.

No evidence of the gassings? No, just people who witnessed it. But they are jews and you probably hate jews, or distrust them. I personally have no reason to believe they were lying. This isn't an intelligent discussion. It's a waste of my time. You clearly have nothing to add to conspiracy theory other than to spew out badly constructed and old opinions. You put up evidence that you haven't even read too. Typical conspiracy theorist then. But why don't you say something like "No, all debunkers are liars" I'm sure that will convince you that is true.

I asked you to go the very end of the discussions. These are nothing more than opinions. The end of conspiracy discussions comes down to arguing the details. Like thermic particles or FEMA reports or quotes from pentagon staff.

Out of the Box
11-10-2009, 06:14 AM
Out of the box. I've heard all these arguments before. I have seen them debunked many, many times. I'm pretty sick of your crap by now.

albie. I've heard all these arguments before. I have seen them debunked many, many times. I'm pretty sick of your crap by now.

No evidence of the gassings? No, just people who witnessed it. But they are jews and you probably hate jews, or distrust them.

I don't hate Jews. I strongly object to their anti-gentile culture, but I won't judge a person just because a person is born from a Jewish family.

I am, however, sceptical about eyewitness testimonies in general. I'm especially sceptical when these testimonies are contradicted by other evidence, are filled with inner contraditions or are just plain nonsensical as is the case with the testimonies you're referring to.

There's but a handful of first hand testimonies of "gassing" of Jews and all of these have been disproven. In fact, the evidence for the existence of "gas chambers" is far weaker than the evidence for the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs and alien abductions. If you don't see any reason to doubt these testimonies, why don't you also believe in the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs and alien abductions? Don't you see you're being a hypocrite here?!?

I personally have no reason to believe they were lying.

I guess you never took the time to take a look at the rest of the evidence or to analyse the testimonies themselves. Otherwise, you'd have many reasons to believe they were lying.

This isn't an intelligent discussion.

Only because you refuse to look at the evidence or find arguments for your POV but instead prefer to make false accusations to hide your own weakness.

You clearly have nothing to add to conspiracy theory other than to spew out badly constructed and old opinions.

What do you want? References to sources? Articles? What do you expect from me?

You put up evidence that you haven't even read too.

So? Have you read every single report you ever refered to from front to back? You seem to imply that I have read no or only little material on the topics I'm discussing, but that's far from the truth.

Typical conspiracy theorist then. But why don't you say something like "No, all debunkers are liars" I'm sure that will convince you that is true.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I'm a skeptic in the true sense of the word (meaning that I'm skeptical about EVERYTHING I read, regardless of the source).

I asked you to go the very end of the discussions. These are nothing more than opinions.

This is not the place to write a 100-page science report, nor do I have the time for this. Again I ask : what do you expect from me?

The end of conspiracy discussions comes down to arguing the details. Like thermic particles or FEMA reports or quotes from pentagon staff.

I guess that's because proving the most important details proves the whole. If you can prove that controlled demolition was used at 9/11 or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, involvement of US intelligence is no longer farfetched. If you can prove that "gas chambers" are a fabrication or that Hitler never wanted to exterminate the Jews, the entire Holocaust myth collapses. That's why these details are so important!

Out of the Box
11-10-2009, 06:31 AM
Below is an article by Bradley Smith on one of the most infamous testimonies, which is the testimony of Abraham Bomba as shown in Lanzmann Holocaust propaganda "documentary" called "Shoah". If you can take this sort of testimony seriously, I really wonder why you don't believe in alien abductions ;)


Abraham Bomba, Barber of Treblinka
By Bradley R. Smith

I have seen the complete nine and one half hour documentary, Shoah, which purports to be "An Oral History of the Holocaust." It was produced, directed, narrated and is now being promoted by Claude Lanzmann. From the newspapers I gather that Lanzmann is an assimilated French Jew who speaks neither Hebrew nor Yiddish. Born in 1925 in Paris, he is presently 78 years old. He worked as a journalist for many years in association with Jean Paul Sartre and the prestigious French philosophical magazine Les Temps Modernes until 1970, when he turned his attention to making movies. The reputation he gained, first of all due to the movie Shoa, enabled him later to become a professor for documentary films.

That is, Claude Lanzmann worked for twenty-five years in the eye of the intellectual storms that swept across France following the end of World War II. As a journalist he certainly learned during those twenty-five years how to conduct professional interviews. He certainly learned, through his associations with Sartre, de Beauvior, Camus, and those who criticized the great triad, how to pursue a train of thought, considering the high-powered company he kept. It is a real eye-opener then to watch Lanzmann reveal his intellectual corruption in scene after scene of this shoddy movie, which he claims took ten years to complete.[1]

My favorite interview in Shoah is the one with Abraham Bomba, the Barber of Treblinka. Lanzmann has given this scene the title "crying out with truth". I am not alone in my fondness for Bomba either. Many critics have commented on his performance. They gave him rave reviews. George Will of ABC Television, for example, wrote in the Washington Post that Bomba's narrative was "the most stunning episode in this shattering film." Some alleged eyewitnesses to gas chamber horrors recount stories that are so lacking in credibility that they can be dismissed out of hand. Others repeat stories that cannot easily be shown to be false but reveal the characters of the talebearers to be so sniveling and shameless that one feels compromised by even listening to them. Bomba is an important character in the Holocaust-survivor-eyewitness scenario in that he embodies much of both of these characteristics.

The lack of credibility starts already with the way this entire scene was filmed. It looks like Bomba is in his barber shop cutting the hair of a customer while imitating the gestures he used to make 40 years earlier when cutting the hair of people who allegedly were about to die in a 'gas chamber.' However, as R. Faurisson has shown, this entire scene was staged. During the interview in Israel, Bomba was already retired and had given up his barbershop in New York. Lanzmann simply rented a shop in Israel and had Bomba pretend it was his.[2]

If one follows Bomba's story, he had been interned in Treblinka about four weeks when the Germans announced that they wanted some barbers for a special detail. Bomba volunteered, of course, then helped the SS identify 16 other Jewish barbers among the internees. They were all taken to the second part of the camp where the alleged gas chambers were. They were led inside the gas chambers where a Kapo[3] (almost certainly a Jew) explained that the 17 barbers were to shear the hair from the women who would arrive to be gassed.

Here, Lanzmann asked Bomba about the greatest murder weapon of all time, the German homicidal 'poison gas chamber':[4]
Lanzmann: "How did it look, the gas chamber?"

Bomba: "It was not a big room, around twelve feet by twelve feet."
And there you have it. Claude Lanzmann is finished with his in-depth investigation of how the Treblinka gas chamber looked. It takes all kinds. If I had been in Lanzmann's shoes I could have thought of a few more questions to ask about 'how it looked.' Particularly if I had some feelings about the stories that maybe a million of my kinsmen had been exterminated in it. Maybe I would have wanted to know what Bomba could tell me about what material the walls of the gas chamber were made of, what the roof was made of. How would Bomba describe the ventilation system? Where and how, exactly, did the 'gas' enter the room? Maybe Bomba would have remembered if the room had been illuminated or not. If it had been, how? What were the doors made of? How did they seal them so that the 'gas' could not escape? As historians have not bothered to ask these simple questions, Lanzmann could have done their work for them and helped uncover one of the great mysteries of the 20th century-what the fabled 'Nazi gas chambers' really looked like.

As to whether Bomba is being honest about having seen a gas chamber at Treblinka, consider Rachel Auerbach's description of that gas chamber in her The Death Camp Treblinka.[5] Auerbach is given a place of honor in this, the most comprehensive book published on the camp. As she was (she died in 1976) a permanent research staff member of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial museum in Jerusalem, her description of the gas chamber should not be dismissed out of hand:
"The floor of the gas chamber was sloping and slippery. The first ones in would slip and fall, never to rise again. Those who followed would topple over them [...] About 25 to 45 minutes later [after the 'gassing' began, that is], the chutes on the other side could be opened and the corpses tumbled out."
And if that is not convincing, then consider what the 1965 verdict of the German trial against the former camp commander Kurt Franz summarized about these gas chambers after many years of thorough criminal investigation, during which all available witness testimony had been collected and evaluated:[6]
"The solidly built edifice, made of bricks and erected on a concrete foundation, contained 3 gas chambers of an area of some 4 × 4 m (13 × 13 ft) and a height of 2.6 m, as well as a machine room for the Diesel engine and the electric generator of the camp. [...] Opposite to them [the entrance doors], every gas chamber had a folding door made of thick wooden planks. These were some 2.50 m wide and some 1.80 high and when opened could be folded upward like modern garage doors. They ended at a ramp 0.7 m above ground, which ran around the entire building. The floor of the gas chambers was tiled and inclined towards the ramp."
This was similar to a report compiled by Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz on behalf of a Soviet investigative commission, based upon several witness statements:[7]
"A large shutter was in the exterior wall of the chamber, which could be opened upwardly and served to remove the corpses. The chambers was tiled, the floor inclined to the outside, which facilitated the removal of the corpses."
It would seem that while he was being interviewed for Shoah Mr. Bomba forgot about how slippery the floor is supposed to have been in his little gas chamber. It seems he forgot how it slanted steeply in the direction of the chutes/folding doors. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bomba forgot to mention the chutes or large folding doors. If Lanzmann had read the literature even superficially, he would have been aware that Bomba was leaving a few things out of his story. As Lanzmann claims he worked for ten years on Shoah, I'm going to guess that Lanzmann is aware of the three description of the Treblinka 'gas chamber' quoted here, which are the main pillars on which the story rests.

In any event, once Lanzmann's curiosity was satisfied about how the gas chamber looked (not big), he wanted to know what happened next.
Lanzmann: "Can you describe precisely?"

Bomba: "Describe precisely... We were waiting there... inside the gas chamber... until the transport came in. Women with children pushed into that place... They were undressed, naked, without clothes, without anything else-completely naked-because they come from the undressing barrack... where they had undressed themselves."

Lanzmann: "What did you feel the first time you saw all those naked women?" [That kind of stuff is called Holo-Pornography, B.S.]

Bomba: "I felt that accordingly I got to do what they [Germans] told me, to cut their hair."
There you have in a nutshell how eyewitnesses to the gas chamber atrocities typically describe their behavior. They did whatever the Germans or anyone else requested of them. When they received a request to help prepare their kinsmen-and even their own families as well as we shall soon see-to be exterminated, or genocided or whatever, these fellows say they hopped right to it. I don't believe them, but that's the persona that they have chosen to project to the world at large. In the neighborhood where I grew up men who behaved like Bomba claims he behaved would have been spit on. In the upside-down world of Holocaust survivordom, however, the Abraham Bombas are seen as martyrs and even heroes. It's a peculiar psychological slant on manly behavior, for hasn't Bomba according to his own story become a working partner in the alleged genocide of his people?

Lanzmann expresses a little more curiosity about how Bomba cut his victims hair than he did about how the gas chamber looked. He asked if Bomba had shaved them, if he had used scissors, and if there had not been mirrors available inside the gas chamber. Bomba said that he did not shave the women, and that the Germans had not provided the barbers with mirrors.
Lanzmann: "There were no mirrors?"

Bomba: "No, there were no mirrors. There were just benches-not chairs, just benches."
There's an interesting note. According to Bomba the Germans had provided benches inside the little gas chamber for the ladies and their children to sit on. We're not told how many benches. There could have been 17 individual ones, but more likely Bomba would have said-if Lanzmann had thought to ask him-that there were maybe four or five, half a dozen perhaps. Two or more ladies with their kids could have sat on each bench. No matter how you slice it, traffic is picking up. Seventeen barbers, the benches for 17, and now the 17 women and their kids are all there together inside the gas chamber, which is about the size of a small bedroom in the rear of an ordinary tract house-and the hair is flying. And all this on a slippery floor with a steep slope toward these folding doors or chutes. Of course, none of the benches start sliding, or did they? But we are not finished yet:
Lanzmann: "You said there were about sixteen [... Lanzmann has forgotten that Bomba makes the seventeenth...] barbers? You cut the hair of how many women in one batch?"

Bomba: "In one day there was about, I would say, going into that place between sixty and seventy women in the same room at one time."
You might think that Claude Lanzmann is about to express some doubt about how Bomba is blocking out this scene for him: 17 barbers, benches, and sixty to seventy naked women in the 160-square-foot room. Lanzmann isn't going to express doubt, however, about anything told to him by a survivor. Lanzmann is a Holocaust fundamentalist. The role of the fundamentalist in any cult is to accept absolutely the testimony of those who claim to have been eyewitnesses to the original sacred event. Once the original story is made to fly, the most elegant minds can elaborate on it endlessly in good faith.

Lanzmann urged Bomba to say something more about how he felt as he went about preparing the women and their children to be exterminated. Something more perhaps than the homely: "I felt that accordingly I got to do what they told me, to cut their hair."
Bomba: "I tell you something. To have a feeling about that... It was very hard to feel anything... your feelings disappeared, you were dead. You had no feeling at all."
This is a universal response by eyewitnesses to the alleged gas chamber murders. The claim Bomba makes that his feelings were "dead," that he had "no feeling at all," resembles the 'temporary insanity' claim murderers use to diminish their responsibility for their behavior in the eye of the State. The ordinary murderer claims that his mental process was so diminished at the time he murdered that he was not responsible for his act. The eyewitness to the alleged gas chamber murders claims that his sensibilities were so diminished while he worked as a link in the murder process that he was not responsible for his behavior. The murderer was out of his 'mind,' while gas chamber eyewitnesses ran out of 'feeling.' When Bomba describes himself as being inwardly "dead," he is saying that he cannot be judged guilty of being an accomplice to mass murder. He can accuse Germans of whatever he likes-participate in the crimes he accuses them of-yet remain forever innocent while Germans remain forever guilty. It's a nice set-up.

In the film Bomba goes on to illustrate how dead he was inwardly while working for the SS at Treblinka. He describes how he shared the hair from women he knew personally from his hometown, from his own street: "[...] and some of them were my close friends." They would ask Abe Bomba: "What's going to happen to us?" But Abe would hold his tongue. With Abe it was just snip, snip, snip. "What could you tell them?," he asks Lanzmann. "What could you tell?"

Snip, snip, snip.

Now Bomba relates to Lanzmann the story that reviewers have remarked on more than any other in Shoah:[8]
Bomba: "A friend of mine worked as a barber-he was good barber in my hometown-when his wife and his sister came into the gas chamber... I can't. It's too horrible. Please."

Lanzmann: "We have to do it. You know it."

Bomba: [holding back tears] "I won't be able to do it."

Lanzmann: [very quietly] "You have to do it. I know it's very hard. I know and I apologize."

Bomba: [struggling] "Don't make me go on, please."

Lanzmann: "Please. We must go on."

Bomba: [unable to control tears, leaving the frame for a moment, returning] "I told you it's going to be very hard. They were taking that [hair] in bags and transporting it to Germany."

Lanzmann: "Okay, go ahead. What was his answer when his wife and sister came?"

Bomba: "They tried to talk to him and the husband of his sister. They could not tell him this was the last time they stay alive, because behind them was the German Nazis, SS, and they knew that if they said a word, not only the wife and the woman, who were dead already, but also they would share the same thing with them. In a way, they tried to do the best for them, with a second longer, a minute longer, just to hug them and kiss them, because they knew they would never see them again."
To tell the truth, this is my kind of story, simple and lurid. There is also some new information in it. In addition to the 60 to 70 women and their kids, and the barbers and the benches, there were also "SS men" inside the 12ft × 12ft gas chamber. We don't know how many, but as Bomba speaks in the plural he must mean that there were at least two. If Lanzmann had thought to ask him about it, Bomba might have said that there were 10 or 15 SS men in there. And then there is the welcome news that the SS would allow the Barbers to hug and kiss certain of the naked women inside the gas chamber. Bomba speaks only of married couples. Lanzmann might have asked perhaps how the SS were able to identify which of the naked women were married to which of the barbers. It must be doubtful that the naked women entered the gas chamber carrying their marriage certificates. Maybe the barbers had previously petitioned the SS to keep their own copies of their marriage certificates on the chance that just such a reunion as Bomba claims he witnessed would take place. On the other hand, maybe the SS men took the barber's word for who was married and who wasn't. If they did, it would betray a generosity of spirit that is not usually ascribed to the SS by Jewish survivors.

Imagine trying to visualize this scene from the wife's point of view. Try imagining what might have gone through her mind at the moment she spied her husband. The hope that must have jumped in her heart. Then what her thoughts were as her husband sheared off her hair without speaking to her. Imagine what she must have felt as he held her silently for a minute or so, his cheek pressed lovingly against her scalp, then turned with scissors and comb to the next patient lady waiting her turn. Did his wife run her fingers over her skull and think:
"Ah, I've always known what kind of man you are. A schmuck when I married you and a schmuck today."
There are a number of observations that can be made about my presentation of Lanzmann's presentation of Bomba's testimony. It could be observed that while Rachel Auerbach's research suggests that Bomba is inventing his gas chamber story out of whole cloth, it can still be claimed that we are left with Auerbach's scholarly outline of the alleged Treblinka gas chambers. Therefore, while Bomba's investigations may destroy his own credibility as a witness, the Treblinka gas chamber story itself remains as it was, a documented story of a weapon used to annihilate about a million Jews. To give you a quick fix on Ms. Auerbach's scholarly instincts and her even-handed objectivity, I will quote from her famous essay "In the Fields of Treblinka":

As I read such passages in Rachel Auerbach's essay, I take the trouble to remind myself that after the war she was "one of the first active members of the Jewish Historical Committee in Poland;" that after emigrating to Israel she became a "permanent research staff member of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum," and that this essay "In the Fields of Treblinka" was thought worthy of reprinting as recently as 1979 by The Holocaust Library, which was found and is managed by survivors themselves and is distributed by a major Jewish publishing house, Shocken Books:[9]
"Polish people still talk about the way soap was manufactured from the bodies of Jews. 'Sent away for soap!' was the expression the Poles would use when they spoke of transports to Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor. The discovery of Professor Spanner's soap factory in Langfuhr near Danzig proved that their suspicious had been well founded. Witnesses tell us that when the corpses were burned on pyres, pans would be placed beneath the racks to catch the fat as it ran off, but this has not been confirmed. But even if the Germans in Treblinka or at any of the other death factories failed to do this, and allowed so many tons of precious fat to go to waste, it could only have been an oversight on their part. They were fully capable of doing things like that. It was entirely in keeping with their proclivities. Only the newness of this branch of manufacturing was to blame for this omission. If the Germans ever would make another drive across Europe, they would not make this mistake again."
Professors Spanner's 'soap factory' in Langfuhr near Danzig was apparently an invention of active members of self-proclaimed Jewish historical committees, based upon the entrepreneurial reports of professional slanderers, and has since been kept alive by research staffs at Jewish Holocaust memorials around the world. A photograph of this 'factory,' with no documentation, appears in the scholarly Encyclopedia Judacia, published in Israel and shelved in many of the larger libraries across the United States.

Rachel Auerbach surprises her readers even with trailblazing scientific findings:[10]
"In Treblinka, as in other places, significant advances were made in the science of annihilation, such as the highly original discovery that the bodies of women burned better than those of men.

'Men won't burn without women.' [...]

For this reason, the bodies of women were used to kindle, or, more accurately put, to build the fires among the piles of corpses, much as coals are utilized to get coke to burn... Blood, too, was found to be first-class combustion material."
Mrs. Auerbach herself gives us a clue what some of her tales are worth, though. On page 48 of the quoted book, she tells us how Heinrich Himmler, while allegedly visiting Treblinka in February 1943, had the honor and pleasure to witness the gassing of several nude women, which is just another example of Holo-pornography. In a rare flare-up of honesty, Auerbach writes:
"As the Italian saying goes: 'Se non è vero, è ben trovato.' (Even if it's not true, it's well invented.)"
Forensic research on the territory of the former Treblinka camp, conducted by a Polish commission just prior to the Nuremberg trials, concluded that no traces of mass graves could be found in the camp itself or its immediate vicinity, but that several mass graves with a maximum of several thousand victims of, in most cases, non-violent deaths were located some 500 m south of the camp.[11] Interestingly enough, R. Auerbach participated at one of these investigations, but instead of correcting her views, she simply hid these very important revelations.

Polish Jews such as Rachel Auerbach witnessed Germans destroying their culture. They witnessed Germans tearing apart Jewish families during the gigantic, brutal resettlement programs. Those Jews can be forgiven their credulity and even some of their hatred, expressed in their eagerness to believe every accusation made against Germans, no matter how corrupt. Americans, however, who suffered nothing of what European Jews suffered at the hands of Germans, have little right to indulge themselves with it.

Which brings me to Mr. George Will, Washington Post columnist and ABC Television commentator. I am willing to accept Mr. Will's own assessment of himself. He is a brilliant and principled man. I disagree with some of his viewpoints, particularly with his obsessive-compulsive attachment to the state of Israel, but I can't show that attachment to be morally wrong. As luck would have it, Mr. Will has written a column about Shoah where he makes a remarkable observation:[12]
"The most stunning episode in this shattering film lasts about five minutes and involves 'only' the talk of a barber now in Israel. While he clips the hair of a customer he talks, never needing to raise his voice to be heard over the small sounds of a familiar ambiance. He describes his duties in Treblinka, cutting hair from naked women on the threshold of the gas chamber, and the day a fellow barber saw his wife and sister enter the room."
Remarkable, eh? Cutting hair from naked women on the 'threshold' of the gas chamber. Do you see it? The threshold is the place directly below the door to a room. A doorsill perhaps. An entrance or a doorway. According to Mr. Webster it is a "place or point of beginning." Taking Mr. Will's own obvious assessment of himself, he is the proud possessor of a formidably organized intellect. A man who always distinguishes carefully between similar but different points of fact. While doing so enrages those lesser men who cannot do it themselves, it gives Mr. Will a lot of pleasure, which is why he does it so regularly. That being so, what am I to make of the fact that Mr. Will has changed the wording of Mr. Bomba's testimony?
Lanzmann: "Excuse me. How did it happen when the women came into the gas chamber? Were you yourself already in the gas chamber?"

Bomba: "I said we were already in the gas chamber, waiting over there for the transport to come in. Inside the gas chamber-we were already in."
If Mr. Bomba swears that he was inside the gas chamber at that particular time, why does Mr. Will write that he barbed those naked women on the "threshold" of the gas chamber? Mr. Bomba can be seen on film saying that he was inside the gas chamber when he did it. In the text of the film published by Mr. Lanzmann, Mr. Bomba again insists he was inside the thing. What happened in Mr. Will's brain as he wrote "threshold" rather than "inside" or "in"? Is it possible that Mr. Will found Mr. Bomba's story ludicrous? He wouldn't want to say so publicly, of course, as Mr. Will is one of our brightest and best Holocaust fundamentalists. Nevertheless, having the kind of relentlessly rational mind that he does, something at the bottom of it might not have bought Mr. Bomba's story the way Mr. Will would have preferred to buy it. Maybe a single wire got crossed in the depths of Mr. Will's brain, out of the millions that are twisted around in there. Maybe Mr. Will wanted to express some doubt about Mr Bomba's story but could not bring himself to do it. He may have been in that peculiar place where writers sometimes find themselves-where they are smart enough to know that something needs to be said but haven't got enough character to go ahead and say it. When this happens it causes a psychological malfunction described cravenly as writer's block; he's got the habit of full production, but if he wasn't to spill the beans he had to turn somewhere. He turned to invention. I suppose in the moment it was easy enough for a man wired the way Mr. Will is wired to invent a threshold image and use it to replace the one Mr. Bomba invented. You can judge how more intelligent Mr. Will is than Mr. Bomba when you compare the rationality of the two opposing visualizations.

Now that Mr. Will had Mr. Bomba on the "threshold" of the gas chamber rather than "inside" it, Mr. Will could go on indulging his fantasy about Mr. Lanzmann's Shoah. As the "threshold" to an exterior door not only leads inside, but turning about, leads to the great outdoors and indeed to the rest of the planet surface, there would be enough space out there for Mr. Bomba's barbers to ply their trade comfortably for the SS, and for all the naked ladies Mr. Bomba and Mr. Will together can conjure up. Mr. Will can indulge his other fantasy as well-that no serious criticism can be made of the testimony of any of that handful of alleged eyewitnesses who claim to have actually seen a 'poison gas chamber.'

In this scenario, as the eyewitness testimony is not allowed to be challenged, the genocide theory can't be challenged either, and if that is so, then European Jews had every right to conquer Palestine and the U.S. Government is morally obligated to protect forever the state of Israel. That's the line of thought programmed into the American citizenry. Mr. Will's threshold caper is a small example of how Holocaust Fundamentalists use invention on the one hand and suppression and censorship on the other to bolster U.S. foreign policies and cover up hypocrisies and ethnic chauvinism of the largest part of organized Jewry here and abroad.

What could be plainer than that the worldwide Jewish community is being betrayed by this nonsense? Jews are being betrayed by their own leadership, and they're being betrayed by Gentiles like Mr. Will who profess to be friends and allies of the Jewish community but who in reality are merely allies of a disastrous Zionist leadership trapped within its own rhetoric, too ashamed to reveal the immense fraud upon which so much of its influence has been built.

Claude Lanzmann's Shoa may be seen as the masterpiece of Holocaust documentaries. But if that is so, then it is also the clearest declaration of bankruptcy ever delivered. After all, in his entire 91/2 hours of documentation, Lanzmann doesn't show us any documentary or physical proof for the claims he and his witnesses make. Most of these 91/2 hours are actually silent sequences of railway tracks, stones, buildings, and countrysides, whose relation to the 'Holocaust' claims exists only through suggestion and imagination. He himself made his brainwashing technique pretty clear when he stated:[13]
"As a result of our filming the stones at Treblinka from all angles, they have finally spoken."
With the stones of Treblinka, Lanzmann meant the field of stones erected after the war on the area that once was the Treblinka camp. Of course, those stones cannot speak about anything that happened before they were placed there. The stones in the soil underneath this memorial, however, could speak, if only one would ask them to: A thorough geo-physical examination of this entire area could confirm still today, if the Polish forensic investigations of 1946 were correct, that is, whether or not the soil in and around Treblinka was ever disturbed by massive mass graves and huge scale open-air incinerations.

But those stones Claude Lanzmann would never want to speak out, and probably for good reasons, since it would destroy his life's work and shatter his firm beliefs. It was in 1994 that Claude Lanzmann explained why he did not include any documentary or forensic evidence in his movie, but restricted himself to psychologically impressive, but scientifically untenable witness statements:[14]
"There is not one second of archival material in Shoah because it is not the way I work or think, and besides it does not exist. [...] If I had found an existing film-a secret film because that was forbidden-shot by an SS and showing how 3,000 Jews, men, women and children, were dying together, asphyxiated in the gas chamber of Krema 2 in Auschwitz, not only would I have not shown it, but I would have destroyed it. I cannot say why. It goes by itself."
If it sounds like the statement of an imbecile, as Serge Thion has put it,[15] then read what Lanzmann had to say about his own movie Shoa in 1997:[16]
"Not understanding has been my iron law."
So what is Shoa all about? It is about-NOTHING. Master Lanzmann himself explained it frankly:[17]
"It was necessary to make this film from nothing, without archival documents, to invent everything."

"It is therefore a case of making a film with traces of traces of traces, [...]. With nothing one comes back to nothing."[18]
André Glucksmann was a bit more sophisticated when he explained that this movie is not about what happened, but about what could have happened, what would have been possible, what is imaginable:[19]
"The strength of this film is not in showing what took place-in fact it refrains from doing that-but in showing the possibility of what took place."

Se non è vero, è ben trovato



source (http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Smith170-176.html)

Out of the Box
11-10-2009, 06:49 AM
Every now and then, a Holocaust memoir is exposed as a fraud in the mainstream because it is simply too silly to be taken seriously be any serious historian. Below are two examples. Do note that only a fraction of the frauds actually gets exposed due to the sensitive nature of the topic.

Holocaust wolf memoir a fake, author admits

A Belgian writer has admitted her bestselling memoir about how she lived with a pack of wolves in the woods to escape from the Nazis during the Second World War was fabricated.

Misha: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years (also known as Survivre avec les Loups) by Misha Defonseca was translated into 18 languages during the 1990s and made into a feature film in France.

The author admitted on Friday that her story was not autobiographical and that she did not trek more than 3,000 kilometres across Europe with a wolf pack in search of her deported Jewish parents.

"I ask forgiveness to all who felt betrayed," Defonseca said in a statement released by her Brussels-based lawyers, Nathalie and Marc Uttendaele.

The 71-year-old author now lives in Dudley, Mass.
Author never fled Belgium in war years

In her book, Defonseca said the Nazis seized her parents when she was a child, forcing her to wander the forests and villages of Europe alone for four years.

She also claimed she was trapped in the Warsaw ghetto, killed a Nazi soldier and was adopted by a group of wolves.

In the statement, she concedes that the story was a fantasy and she never fled her home in Brussels during the war.

She also divulged that her real name was Monique De Wael and her parents were taken and killed by the Nazis because they were Belgian resistance fighters.

The writer says she invented the tale because of the hard life she had growing up as an outsider of sorts.

She was often called "daughter of the traitor" because her father was rumoured to have given up information under torture. She was cared for by relatives.

"Apart from my grandfather, I hated the people who looked after me. They treated me badly … [i] always felt Jewish," she told French newspaper Le Figaro in an article published Friday.

She was fascinated by wolves as a young girl, she told the paper, and that also became part of her fantasy life.

"There are times when it is difficult for me to tell the difference between what was reality and what was my interior universe," she said.

The revelation comes amid some controversy that had already been swirling around Defonseca for the past few weeks. There have been rumblings that she was not Jewish in addition to a protracted battle she's had with her American publisher over royalties.

Belgian historian Maxime Steinberg, interviewed on television, says the Defonseca family can't be found in Jewish archives and says the De Wael family is not Jewish either.

The story was written with the help of ghostwriter Vera Lee, who says she was shocked to hear Defonseca made up the story.

"She always maintained that this was truth as she recalled it, and I trusted that that was the case," Lee said.

source (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2008/02/29/jewish-memoir-wolves.html)Herman Rosenblat's Holocaust memoir of love is exposed as a hoax

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00454/COuple_454941a.jpg

A heartwarming Holocaust memoir that is to become a big-budget film has been exposed as a hoax by a Jewish survivor in Britain only weeks before it was due to be published.

Herman Rosenblat's Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love that Survived, tells how he met his future wife as a girl when she threw apples to him over the barbed wire fence of the concentration camp where he was held.

Oprah Winfrey, who twice invited Mr Rosenblat on to her talk show, hailed the book as “the single greatest love story ... we've ever told on air”. The still-unpublished memoir became the basis for a children's book and $25 million (£17 million) feature film, The Flower of the Fence, which is due to start shooting in March.

The February 3 publication date was abruptly cancelled at the weekend, however, when Berkley Books, an imprint of Penguin Group (USA), said it had received “new information” from the author's agent.

Mr Rosenblat, 79, a retired television repairman living in Miami, said that he met his future wife while he was a teenage boy in Schlieben, a sub-division of the Buchenwald concentration camp.

The nine-year-old girl, he said, tossed him an apple. The two met again by chance when Mr Rosenblat agreed to a blind date with a Polish immigrant named Roma Radzicki in Coney Island in 1957, and recognised her. They married soon afterwards.

Holocaust scholars doubted the story, and it was exposed by the New Republic magazine. Ben Helfgott, a former Schlieben inmate, told the magazine that Mr Rosenblat's story was “simply an invention”. Mr Rosenblat joins the swelling ranks of discredited memorists. “I wanted to bring happiness to people,” he said. “I brought hope to a lot of people. My motivation was to make good in this world.”

The film's producer plans to go ahead. Harris Salomon, of Atlantic Overseas Pictures, said he had always planned a “loose and fictionalised adaptation”.

source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5409220.ece)

albie
11-11-2009, 06:26 AM
I don't need to read any of that. A "wise man" debunked it all for me already. I know that some of the testimony is dodgy. That's to be expected. But not "all" of it is. You are lying to yourself and us.

EireEngineer
11-11-2009, 08:25 PM
Every now and then, a Holocaust memoir is exposed as a fraud in the mainstream because it is simply too silly to be taken seriously be any serious historian. Below are two examples. Do note that only a fraction of the frauds actually gets exposed due to the sensitive nature of the topic.
So because a few of them were faked, that means the whole idea of the Holocaust was a fabrication?

albie
11-12-2009, 07:47 AM
Out of his box likes to portray himself as a decent fellow but I smell something bad with him.

EireEngineer
11-12-2009, 08:39 AM
Out of his box likes to portray himself as a decent fellow but I smell something bad with him.
I think you are letting your bias cloud your thinking.

Out of the Box
11-12-2009, 08:55 AM
I don't need to read any of that. A "wise man" debunked it all for me already. I know that some of the testimony is dodgy. That's to be expected. But not "all" of it is.

Only a tiny minority of testimonies actually contradict Holocaust revisionism and these have been debunked. Most testimonies are perfectly compatible with both the official story and the revisionist account and some explicitly contradict the official story.

You are lying to yourself and us.

I'm telling the truth as I understand it.

So because a few of them were faked, that means the whole idea of the Holocaust was a fabrication?

Of course not. It just illustrates that you can't base what happened on testimonies alone. The Holocaust myth is disproven by documentary evidence, forensic tests and other types of physical evidence.

National-socialism (aka Nazism or Naziism) was far from an evil ideology. In fact, it was the best thing that ever happened to Germany. Most Germans who were old enough to remember the era '33-'39 will remember it as the happiest period of their life, however they'll admit it with shame because they've been brainwashed to hate their history for many decades ever since. To understand the real situation in Hitler-Germany, I highly recommend you take a look at Archives Index (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archivesindex.html) .

When people judge Hitler, they usually don't look beyond the so-called Holocaust. Holocaust revisionists have proven, however, that the so-called Holocaust is largely based on lies. In the following paragraphs I'll try to give a short summary of the views expressed by Holocaust revisionists. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask them. If you have any remarks, feel free to make them.

Around the early 1900's Hitler ended up in Vienna. Back then, Vienna had quite a significiant Jewish population and here Hitler developed his antisemitic beliefs. Many of the Vienna Jews were involved in political or social movements which Hitler considered harmful for Germany and some of the weeklies he stumbled on claimed that the Jews were doing this as part of a well-designed plan to corrupt gentile culture on behalf of their own group interests. These papers also claimed that Jews controled most of the mainstream press and many key areas of the German economy. As he learned more and more about Jewish influence in Vienna and Europe in general, he became more and more convinced that these views were an accurate representation of the facts.

During the early '20s, he would write Mein Kampf. In this book, he developed the idea that Jews and Germans were different ethnic groups and that to preserve and advance the future of Germany the Jews must be limited in their power. He believed that by denying certain rights to Jews he could stop the corruption of Germany and help Germany become a healhy and prosperous nation again. At the same time, he wanted to increase the group cohesion of the German people by making them proud of their culture and ethnicity again and by spreading the concept of class solidarity rather than class struggle. For this purpose, he developed an ideology called national-socialism that would embody these ideas, hoping it could save Germany from total collapse. Back in the early '20s, it seemed Germany was pretty much bankrupt both economically and morally.

In 1933, after a decade of political and economical chaos, Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany. The international Jewish community, well aware of Hitler's antisemitic views, immediately launched a boycott against Germany. One newspaper headlined "Judea declares war on Germany", which should give an idea of the intensity of this boycott.

Of course, Germany immediately responded by boycotting all Jewish goods. This German response, however, is mentioned in every history book on the Third Reich whereas the Jewish boycott of German goods is conventiently left out. Here's where the distortion of historical facts already begins.

During the years that followed, several laws were implemented in Germany to limit the rights of Jews in Germany as Hitler has suggested in Mein Kampf. They were not allowed to exercise certain professions, they were not allowed to own certain property, they were not allowed to marry ethnic Germans, etc. Although from a modern day perspective this al seems quite inhumane, back at the time (when Americans still enforced segretation between blacks and whites) this was considered a very humane solution considering all the evil of which Jews had been accused.

Zionists, in their early days, saw the potential of these policies and actually cooperated with the nazis to organise voluntary migration of German Jews to Palestine. A well-known agreement between the nazis was the Haavara-agreement. Up until 1939, this cooperation between zionists and nazis was continued.

Before I jump to WW2, I'd also like to mention Kristallnacht, also known as the Night of the Broken Glass. In November 1938, Jewish Herschel Grynszpan murdered German diplomat Ernst vom Rath at the German embassy of Paris. Ordindary Germans, fueled by a state policy of antisemitism, were enraged by this act and on the night of November 8th the German masses marched down the street and rioted against the Jews. Synagogues were burnt, shops were thrashed and people were beaten and in a handful of cases even killed. It is unclear to what degree this riot was spontaneous and to what degree state officials played a role, but it was most definitely state antisemitism that fueled the emotions that lead up to the events.

I won't go into details on the origins of WW2 (another complex issue), so I'll go over it very quickly. Germany had some issues with Poland it had been negotiating on sinds 1933. In 1939, Poland unilaterally ceased all negotiations due to lobbying from England. After Poland ignored every proposal from Germany regarding the continuation of these negotiations, Gemany posed an ultimatum. Poland's response was to sign a pact with England and France guaranteeing protection in case Poland was attacked. Thus, when Hitler did in fact invade Poland, England and France declared war on Germany and WW2 had started.

Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization soon declared his support of the war effort in name of all the Jews. Hitler took this as a declaration of war from the side of the Jewish community and decided that all Jews in Germany posed a threat to national security and therefore should be isolated from the general population. It may seem quite an extreme measure today, but few people realise that Roosevelt did THE EXACT SAME THING with American citizens of Japanese origins and also Canada did the same. And of course, both Russians and Japanese had concentration camps too. I'm not sure exactly who the British locked up, but Heinrich Harrer tells in his "Seven Years in Tibet" how he too was captured by the British in India and sent to a prison camps although he was just a civilian. So when people talk about the inhumanity of locking up innocent civilians, it should be noted that all nations involved did pretty much the same thing.

The conditions in the German concentration camps (and ghettoes - some Jews were packed together in ghettoes) depended on various conditions. It depended on the number of inmates, on the inmates with special privileges (capos, sonderkommandos, Judenrat, ...), it depended on the German personel involved, etc. Overall I'd say the conditions in German camps were not necessarilly worse than those in British or American camps and most definitely better than those in Russian camps.

However, things changed drastically in 1944. Germany was losing the war and due to continuous carpet bombings by allied planes supplies could no longer reach their destination. Typhus, common in areas with poor sanitation and a high number of people, could not longer be controlled in some of the camps and people were dying in large numbers. Worst cases were Bergen-Belsen and Dachau and most of the pictures with piles of emaciated bodies were taken at those camps. It was an absolutely nightmarish sight for everyone who witnessed this, but it had nothing to do with extermination.

From 1942 onwards, however, allied propagandists had been claiming that Germans were murdering Jews in large numbers. At the discovery of these piles of bodies at Bergen-Belsen and Dachau, the American psy-warfare decided to exploit this to further continue their attrocity propaganda. Sovjets would soon do the same and so the Holocaust was born.....

Eye-Kon
11-13-2009, 02:38 PM
These forums are such a give away. You have roughly 3 or 4 guys who just go around the forum spamming every thread with a bit of truth in it to confuse the people who read these threads. Theres albie, out of the box, Eireengineer and blueangel. All of them are obviously working together to confuse this websites fan base. This thread here just further confirms that reptilians are real for anybody with common sense. I personally don't need anymore convincing but for someone who does just look at whats going on here....

I posted a little bit of info about reptilians and with in a few days theres like 2 pages of just copy and pasted articles that are barely relevant to the subject at hand, reptilians. They do this so theres less of a chance people will see the posts in here that actually state the truth. Classic forum spammers.

Now I don't know if thats meant to a reptilian face on that 5 pound note but I do know there is reptilians as I've said before in my previous post. There out there, there all around actually. There very advanced and discrete and can take human form at will. There also extremely telepathic. They have technology thats at least 30 thousand years ahead of ours, they can do things like project holograms to make themselves appear how ever they want, they can also actually shape-shift. They have many different ways of manipulating solid matter. This allows them to toy with regular people with out much effort and they can do this while still seeming to be a regular person themselves. Reptilians can literally re-arrange your whole life.

EireEngineer
11-13-2009, 03:59 PM
These forums are such a give away. You have roughly 3 or 4 guys who just go around the forum spamming every thread with a bit of truth in it to confuse the people who read these threads. Theres albie, out of the box, Eireengineer and blueangel. All of them are obviously working together to confuse this websites fan base. This thread here just further confirms that reptilians are real for anybody with common sense. I personally don't need anymore convincing but for someone who does just look at whats going on here....

I posted a little bit of info about reptilians and with in a few days theres like 2 pages of just copy and pasted articles that are barely relevant to the subject at hand, reptilians. They do this so theres less of a chance people will see the posts in here that actually state the truth. Classic forum spammers.

Now I don't know if thats meant to a reptilian face on that 5 pound note but I do know there is reptilians as I've said before in my previous post. There out there, there all around actually. There very advanced and discrete and can take human form at will. There also extremely telepathic. They have technology thats at least 30 thousand years ahead of ours, they can do things like project holograms to make themselves appear how ever they want, they can also actually shape-shift. They have many different ways of manipulating solid matter. This allows them to toy with regular people with out much effort and they can do this while still seeming to be a regular person themselves. Reptilians can literally re-arrange your whole life.
Well....albie is a nutter and BlueAngel is a moderator, so you cant really count them. As for me, yes, I do receive my weekly check from the Bohemian Grove at the typical Useful Idiot paygrade. That is when they dont accidentally transfer it to the reptilian account. All hail Zarquan the Destroyer!

albie
11-14-2009, 06:28 AM
>>The Holocaust myth is disproven by documentary evidence, forensic tests and other types of physical evidence.

I smell a prussian blue yawnathon about to happen.

Chasing Evil: Debunking neo-Nazi Pseudo-"Studies" (http://www.chasingevil.org/2007/10/debunking-neo-nazi-pseudo-studies.html)

Out of his tree will now complain that I use sources that I cannot really trust, meanwhile he'll believe the tests done a by a racist and known liar.

Showing just how really pointless anything out of his head is to any discussion.

Out of the Box
11-14-2009, 08:08 AM
Theres albie, out of the box, Eireengineer and blueangel. All of them are obviously working together to confuse this websites fan base.

HEY! Watch your mouth, OK?! I don't have anything to do with these other people and I'm just telling the truth as it is. I'm pretty sure none of the others are on someone's payroll either, even though they do sometimes make silly statements.

If you disagree with my views or anyone elses, feel free to engage in discussion. It will only be beneficial for the activity on this forum.

Out of the Box
11-14-2009, 10:40 AM
I smell a prussian blue yawnathon about to happen.

Chasing Evil: Debunking neo-Nazi Pseudo-"Studies" (http://www.chasingevil.org/2007/10/debunking-neo-nazi-pseudo-studies.html)

Out of his tree will now complain that I use sources that I cannot really trust, meanwhile he'll believe the tests done a by a racist and known liar.

What about the forensic tests done on bodies at Bergen-Belsen and Dachau? What about the Red Cross reports? What about the total lack of German documents referencing to extermination? What about witness testimonies that contradict the official story (eg. Rassinier or Burg)? For the official Holocaust account to make any sense, you need to ignore loads of evidence or lack common sense.

BlueAngel
11-17-2009, 10:03 PM
These forums are such a give away. You have roughly 3 or 4 guys who just go around the forum spamming every thread with a bit of truth in it to confuse the people who read these threads. Theres albie, out of the box, Eireengineer and blueangel. All of them are obviously working together to confuse this websites fan base. Classic forum spammers.

Firstly, Eye-Kon, I don't work with anyone.

Secondly, I have not contributed to this thread until now and it is quite evident that my contributions to other threads wherein Erie, Out of the Box and Albie are debating are minimal and/or non-existent at best.

Thirdly, I am a moderator of this forum and I would not be in this position if I were a spammer.

BlueAngel
11-17-2009, 10:06 PM
HEY! Watch your mouth, OK?! I don't have anything to do with these other people and I'm just telling the truth as it is. I'm pretty sure none of the others are on someone's payroll either, even though they do sometimes make silly statements.

If you disagree with my views or anyone elses, feel free to engage in discussion. It will only be beneficial for the activity on this forum.

What a silly statement by Out of the Box.

He must be on someone's payroll.

Out of the Box
11-18-2009, 03:19 AM
What a silly statement by Out of the Box.

He must be on someone's payroll.

Is this an attempt at humor? :rolleyes:

BlueAngel
11-19-2009, 10:57 PM
Is this an attempt at humor? :rolleyes:

I don't attempt anything.

When I'm humorous, you'll know it.

If you have to ask, well, then, I'll have to consider that you have absolutely no understanding of basic logic and are either a fundamentalist Christian or radical liberal.

Out of the Box
11-20-2009, 01:45 AM
I don't attempt anything.

When I'm humorous, you'll know it.

Considering the lack of logic in many of your posts, it's often hard to distinguish between a serious post and pure satire.

If you have to ask, well, then, I'll have to consider that you have absolutely no understanding of basic logic and are either a fundamentalist Christian or radical liberal.

That's ALMOST funny :D

albie
11-20-2009, 09:11 AM
What about the forensic tests done on bodies at Bergen-Belsen and Dachau? What about the Red Cross reports? What about the total lack of German documents referencing to extermination? What about witness testimonies that contradict the official story (eg. Rassinier or Burg)? For the official Holocaust account to make any sense, you need to ignore loads of evidence or lack common sense.

Why show such an interest in the holocaust? There are many other events in history. yet you home in on one that involves jews. Hmmm. I suppose you have a rational excuse for this distrust of this ONE event over all the others.

And I wish you would be more specific when tapping out your evidence. A few links wouldn't go amiss. You've really not shown any smoking gun evidence though. I wonder if I can be bothered to trawl through more ambiguous crap.

NOT finding cyanide in bodies is not proof that cyanide wasn't used on others. Do i really need to point that out? Give me a reason to distrust Jews. The one you use, that is. I don't see a reason to believe they lied, even with contradictory testimonies. This was a wild and grey event. I would EXPECT contradiction.I would be more suspicious if all the testimonies were the same. The Nazis hated jews, they had plenty of jews at hand. Why round them up? Why not just boot them out the country? We know why. Even Nick Griffin admits it happened.

albie
11-20-2009, 09:18 AM
Red Cross apologizes for Holocaust silence (http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/971010/redcross.shtml)

Red Cross and the holocaust.

As reports of extermination camps began to spread in 1944, the Red Cross visited the Theresienstadt ghetto in Czechoslovakia at the invitation of the Nazis. The Nazis cleaned up the ghetto by lessening overcrowded conditions by sending prisoners to Auschwitz and adding a bank, shops and schools.
The ruse worked. The Red Cross reported that allegations of extermination camps were unfounded. In the latter stages of the war, the Red Cross did work with Jewish organizations in rescuing Jews, according to Yehuda Bauer, the director of research at Yad Vashem.

albie
11-20-2009, 09:22 AM
>>What about the total lack of German documents referencing to extermination?

Well DUH! Let's keep a record of all our murders, shall we? What IS the final solution then? Anyone explained that?

http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/denial/nazi_doc.txt

STATMENTS BY LEADING NAZIS
**************************

Speech by Hitler, January 31, 1939
[Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals -
Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol XIII, p. 131]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers
in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into
a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth,
and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in
Europe!


Adolph Hitler speaking to a crowd at the Sports Palace in Berlin,
30 January 1942. Quoted in "The Holocaust", by Martin Gilbert,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1985, p. 285. Text as monitored by the
Foreign Broadcast Monitoring Service, Federal Communications Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And we say that the war will not end as the Jews imagine it
will, namely with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of
this war will be the complete annihilation of the Jews.

What more do you need?

albie
11-20-2009, 09:27 AM
The use of cyanide to kill these people has been exaggerated through general ignorance of the subject, but the intent was there. The number of intentional deaths isn't 6 million. Give or take a million.

I wonder if Germany ever really invaded Belgium. Or was it a big Belgian lie? You know what those Belgians are like. All RICH aren't they. Get everywhere!

albie
11-20-2009, 09:31 AM
If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.


From Mein Kampf

albie
11-20-2009, 09:38 AM
his personal diary, Joseph Goebbels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels) writes:“February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#cite_note-Goebbels214-26)”
This diary contains numerous other references to the mass extermination of Jews, including how "tens of thousands of them are liquidated" in eastern occupied territory,[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#cite_note-Goebbels294-27) and that "the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war."[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#cite_note-Goebbels63-28) When speaking about this document under oath, David Irving is quoted as saying "There is no explicit reference...to the liquidation of Jews" and critics of Holocaust denial consequently state that it is dishonest to say such a thing when it is entirely contradicted by the diary of one of Hitler's closest associates.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#cite_note-IrvingGoebbels-29)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#cite_note-HHIrving-30) David Cole (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cole_(Holocaust_denier)&action=edit&redlink=1) has previously stated that those who consider themselves revisionists have yet to provide an adequate explanation of this document.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#cite_note-Cole-31)

RussyB
11-30-2009, 12:03 AM
This can be a some type of symbol, but what is the harm in it?

albie
11-30-2009, 06:35 AM
You're right Russyb. Where's the harm? Will someone please tell me where?

pavlov's dog
02-23-2010, 02:31 AM
That's Prince Charles in his swaddling cloth. Cute little bugger ain't he?