The holocaust is a hoax

TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION!

Educate yourselves, do not adhere to wartime propaganda!

Did 6 Million Really Die? By: Richard Verrall - http://pastebin.com/2aN5pYG7 (Full Text)
http://www.holohoax101.com - Contains information on debunking the Holocaust
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com-  Holocaust Denial Videos - 9 hours of free web video about how the holocaust is a hoax
http://www.codoh.com - CODOH - Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
http://www.nazigassings.com - Nazi Gassings - Nazi Gassings Never Happened!
http://www.holocaustdenier.com - Holocaust Denier - Holocaust Denial page, links to films such as "The Last Days of the Big Lie"
http://www.vho.org - The World's Largest Historical Revisionism Website
http://www.ihr.org/ - The Institute for Historical Review
http://www.revisionists.com/revisionism.html - What is Revisionism?
http://zioncrimefactory.com/the-six-million-myth/ - The Six Million Myth
http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/ - Exposing the fraudulent testimony of Elie Wiesel

Ahahahaha

This thread is like every other OMG TEH CONSPIRASEEE thread on this whole goddamn website.  It's really sad.

None of you morons could stand a minute in any of the Holocaust archives in America, or Israel, or Europe.  You would get frustrated just looking at the names, the dates.  Trolling from beyond the grave.

It's all there.  Millions of documents of this shit.  Pictures, testimonies from prisoners and guards.  Walls and walls of every record the Nazis so meticulously kept.
But it doesn't matter.  I mean, hey, what's a titanic tower of evidence and reality when a blog I read says otherwise?  Tinfoil hats are impervious to reality, so I've come to see.

>>40
You could start by looking at what's even physically possible.
Like whether it's possible to bury 800,000 dead Jews in a mass grave 100'x100' (30x30m), without having to go, like, half a mile down.
Or how their crematoriums were able to completely incinerate a body in minutes, whereas modern ones take hours.
Or the story about the engine from a _captured Russian sub_ was used to make the CO gas to kill inmates. (1: No Russian sub was ever actually captured by the Germans, 2: sub engines are heavy shit, and the camp in question was far inland, 3: Germans had industry of their own, and didn't need to capture enemy equipment, and 4: there are _way_ easier ways of making CO)

Or look at this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzBpcuE8mpc
It's a place to start.


>>41
Pictures, testimonies from prisoners and guards
Yeah, I've heard about those. Pictures of people who inhaled some gas and promptly lost some 100 lb or whatever before dying. Srsly, take away that last little side effect, and you'd have the ultimate weight-loss cure EVVAAH!

(FYI: What _would_ cause such weight loss, is diseases like cholera, which was rampant in those camps. They're also time-consuming and painful (not to mention deadly), which is why it's not exactly recommended.)

Testimonies? Like the ones mentioning clothes piled 150' (50m) high? The aforementioned captured Russian sub engine?

FYI, those witnesses were rarely any real strangers to kangaroo-courts. They'll have known if they were in one, and maybe even try to plant a clue or two in their testimonies.


Myself, I'll just note the bad vibes anyone intelligent should get from the fact that refusing to believe is the only thought-crime you still can go to jail for in Europe.

Truth does indeed not fear investigations. It fears kangaroo-courts, just as kangaroo-courts fear the truth.
Just saying.

>>42
You seem to have mistaken my question, so I shall ask again.  What kind of evidence would you take as valid evidence of the Holocaust? for my part, I will also provided criteria of evidence I would determine is valid evidence of the non-occurrence of the Holocaust.  We could go back and forth decrying each other's objections and postulations all day without a baseline line this.

For example, your reply to >>41 indicates that all evidence has to be valid for any evidence to be valid.  If that were the case, episodes like Columbine and 9/11 wouldn't have conspiracy theories and all possibilities of people giving imperfect reports due to imperfect knowledge of the situation would not occur.  We'd know the exact number of gunmen, guns, bombs, bullets, and people shot the moment they were used.  But my major complaint is that by focusing on only the parts that strike you as ridiculous, you automatically reject even those that are reasonable as equally "ridiculous" despite the exaggeration you scoffed at not being present.

>>43
«Focusing on only the parts that strike you as ridiculous» seems to be how defence lawyers work. Not because they personally want their client to be innocent, but as a way of forcing the prosecutors to provide, not propaganda and BS, but actual evidence.


Like I mentioned, there's what's physically possible in the first place. (Want a mass grave for 800,000 bodies? Start by securing enough space. Preferably more than 20' away from the camp's drinking-water supply.)

Also, there's things that are, shall we say, less than ambiguous. The existence of a KZ camp proves that there were KZ camps lying around (which nobody has denied). Pictures of starving inmates proves that the camps had little food to spare (big shock there; the inmates were there in the first place precisely because they were undesirables).

And there's testimonies that aren't blatantly inconsistent with realism (e.g. captured Russian sub engines 300 miles inland and stuff), or with reality (e.g. women's hair being cut to stuff into women's mattresses, rather than as louse control).

I don't need «all to be valid for any to be valid», I just want stuff that stands up to scrutiny. Like, without insulting people's intelligence instead.



As a kind of side note, how does nobody ever seem to notice how some people (like Europe's law makers) seem to think that over-focus on Holocaust as proof of Nazi evilness, somehow doesn't diminish the other evils the 3rd Reich is actually guilty of? Like the Crystal Night, or «degenerate art», book burnings &stuff.

Just for the record, I'm not (much of) a revisionist myself (hence the 3rd-person mentions earlier), I'm just allergic to bullshit. And when one side of a case can talk substantially longer than the other without insulting my intelligence, guess who I'll be listening to the more?

"The Holocaust is a lie" translates roughly to "I'm fucking retarded; I didn't graduate from middle school."

So many documents; so many records; if you really believe that a coverup is so expansive that it encompasses the entirety of WWII you have some bigger issues than just being a racist retard.

>>45
After all this text, with external links etc, that sentence of yours translates into either "i'm too lazy to read" or "i'm so brainwashed that i'm now too scared to listen to anyone else".

And i'm not going to invite another trolling war by guessing which one.

>>46
That feeling is the completely normal frustration that you can not convince people of something.

>>47
Which particular feeling are you talking about now?

As for me, until a couple months ago, I actually bought the anti-revisionist BS that "only Nazis would find faults with the Holocaust story".
Then I overheard someone pointing out inconsistencies (while making sense), and then point out that revisionists don't deny the rest of the NSDAP's track record. Not to mention how they too hold the Crystal Night etc to be crimes.

And the more I look into those matters (which isn't all that much, I have this thing called "a life"), the more I see people atleast trying to be consistent, to keep to actual evidence, to be non-brainwashed.

Meanwhile, the ANTI-revisionists will still not fkin stop insulting my intelligence!

So if you want to "interpret my feelings" or somesuch, then this is the real one.


Tl;dr: I'm allergic to bullshit. Especially made-up bullshit from pigheaded retards.

>>47,48
Meanwhile, the ANTI-revisionists will still not fkin stop insulting my intelligence!
Yes, that actually is the frustration to which I was alluding.

Meanwhile, I checked what the wiki has to say about revisionism.

To my rather non-existent surprise, it was a rather monotonous assortment of Hilter-fanbois that got something like all the air-time¹. So much so that I couldn't stomach reading it all.

¹ Barring of course the opposition.

As opposed to, say, «He still did do all those other things, and he's still an evil prick, it's just that there's funny stuff going on with the evidence on that last count. Oh, and why is it such a thought-crime to even say that, anyway? If the evidence really is that solid, I mean?»

Or, for that matter, allowing Hitler to have been a statesman and a leader (not to mention a human being), as well as a Nazi dictator, without first needing to be a Hitler-fanboi?

But no, let's not let those get any air-time. That would blur up those fancy frontlines of ours. Can't have that.


I mean, it's all well and good to stress how bad he was and stuff, but after a point it just gets ridiculous. For starters, it's not exactly like he's the only dictator in human history or something…

How can the holocaust be a hoax there were way too many people who died there and this is a bunch of bull you're probably just some stupid racist

>>51
Right now I'm too tired of those knee-jerk anti-intelligent "rebuttals" like yours, to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-iterate what revisionism is actually about. It's been spelled out repeatedly as it is, in this thread alone.

The fact that people like you, so pigheadedly keep on re-re-re-re-re-parroting bullshit, instead of ever actually fkin   listening...

...well, in this case, reading. Posts that you're clearly either too lazy or too brainwashed, to actually read...

Gah. So many illiterate spamfags. So few braincells.

wow the jidf is even worse on this board

way to bump an old thread, faggot

>>54
"Old thread" as in "started more than five minutes ago" or something? Cos it's been on the front page for ages.
("Old thread" usually means "on page 4-or-more")

>>53
Nah, they're the worst on /prog/

>>22

Congratulations this is the dumbest shit I've read in this month.
How about thinking instead of just eating what's served "eh?".

>>57
Your contrarian attitude simply for the sake of being so is awfully tiring.

>>58
You're talking to the mirror again.

Hey dude, not cool

a lot of people died, it's really bad to make fun of it man

>>60
Who's making fun?

>>31
Discovered where exactly?
There are plenty of bone fragments scattered around the ground at Sobibor still to this day.

>>62
AH-HAAAH! And those "plenty of bone fragments" cannot POSSIBLY mean ANY less than six million dead Jews, right?
(FTR: Even if you kill "only" a thousand Gypsies/Jews/whatever, that still leaves "plenty of bone fragments" in the ground wherever you dump them.)

As has been mentioned earlier: The existence of KZ camps proves that there were KZ camps in existence. Since the EARLY nineteen-THIRTIES. (i.e. a decade before those infamous gassings STARTED.)

Not to mention, when a KZ camp is run and operated by a brutal dictatorship (and let's face it: who else would?), you eventually get people dying inside them. That's where all those grave-sites come in, starting long before that infamous six million mark.


On a similar note: Those "Human Skin Lampshades" have never been actually proven, have they? Instead, when one such lamp did show up, DNA evidence turned out it was from a goat. ("Scape-goat" maybe?)

This kind of stuff seems to be happening whenever people go and collect real evidence.
Which is actually rare, because actually collecting actual evidence is actually strictly forbidden these days. Ever wonder why?