Jimmy Falun Gong, Hitler’s Mind Control History |540|

I'm not sure what Robbe is referring to, but I caught this snippet from Fridman's interview with Rogan. Its a short clip and Rogan talks a lot about Trump and why he hasn't had him on his show.

Thanks. as I just posted, robbie got it totally backwards.

Ok I got to flip-flop again... joe rogan is a hero... and humanity's best hope :)
The Holocaust is one of the strongest examples of topics that have become ‘too sacred to discuss’ -

I disagree. this is a myth perpetuated by holohoaxers. there's plenty of discussion. see the stuff I just posted about 1.5 million jews murdered in 100 days in the death camps. follow all the references. real researchers. real research. not everyone moving in lockstep.

What you're saying is comprable to saying that flat earth is too sacred to discuss. it's not. it's just scientifically stupid.

the mRNA Vaccines have proven to be a close second

Kinda... but this gets back to the discernment thing. I mean, we have substantial evidence that they've attempted to hijack the science when it comes to the bio weapon gene therapy jab. at the same time, some really good stuff has come out as well... much of what they were trying to hide has been exposed. discernment.
On the contrary... I think this totally misses the point. we have to start with the history. hitler did it. the nazis did it. southern slavers did it. so did the northern slavers. we got to own history and quit being revisionists... apologists.

where is Scott Shay wrong? where is he right?
It seems to be potentially indicative of bias toward, literally, ANYTHING that is counter-mainstream. Almost as 'ism in its own right. We see clear evidence of this on both political ideological extremes in the U.S.
WTF Robbie!!! you got this totally backwards!!! rogan said that the trump haters abandon all logic and reason because they saw trump as an existential threat to democracy.

Please acknowledge that you got this totally wrong so that you can restore my dwindling confidence in your posts.
Yes. I Got it totally wrong and retracting. I misheard the clip.
And for what its worth, I do see Trump as an existential threat to democracy. I'm not sure how anyone doesn't see him in this light.

thx for clarifying yr position. and a big double-wow!

what if you became convinced at the last election was probably fraudulent. would you consider that to be an "existential threat to democracy"?
On the contrary... I think this totally misses the point.

I‘m not sure I understand. Are you saying that Gideon Levy and Miko Peled have somehow totally missed the point or are misguided? All I was doing was agreeing with their point of view.
You previously ‘liked’ what I wrote and that you pasted in this post, it doesn’t make sense. Could you clarify please?
I disagree. this is a myth perpetuated by holohoaxers. there's plenty of discussion. see the stuff I just posted about 1.5 million jews murdered in 100 days in the death camps. follow all the references. real researchers. real research. not everyone moving in lockstep.

What you're saying is comprable to saying that flat earth is too sacred to discuss. it's not. it's just scientifically stupid.

In your own words, you say in the Scott Shay podcast…(my bolding)

Well, anywhere I listen to a ton of podcasts. I don’t hear very many interviews like this,

Anyone in the public eye or with potential to communicate broadly just will not express any opinions that might be construed as criticism of Israel/Jews/Zionists. It’s not just my opinion, the evidence for this is widespread. Who was behind the ‘anti-Semitic‘ slur against Jeremy Corbyn? Anyone who dares to speak their mind gets crucified at every turn. The pro Israel lobbies are well funded and too numerous to list.

This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post

“Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic!
That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible.

Published: MAY 20, 2012 22:31”

I say such writings are best treated as laughable.

These are the type of things I have a gripe with. Jews DO have great influence in the holywood, mainstream media and in the social media.

You seem to me to think I am possibly a ‘holohoaxer’ - fair enough, I’m not offended, but if so, the truth is I don’t even know what a holohoaxer is meant to believe! Can you perhaps give some examples?

The flat earth is not similar in any way to what I’m getting at. For starters it doesn’t have powerful, wealthy ‘protectors’ the same way Israel does, it isn’t anything like as emotional a subject as Israel is - most people couldn’t care less about people who believe in the flat earth theory. They’re often dismissed as cranks etc. The fact that you even see the two as being similar is a bit strange in my mind.

I would agree that FEarth is a Scientifically stupid argument, but I would definitely keep defending my statement that you so disagree with. Any Critical Discussion of the Holocaust is seen as unacceptable, like simply questioning the 6 million number for example, that is what I in turn think is unacceptable.

I watched an interview of a Hungarian historian (John Lukacs) recently that wrote about Hitler & the war in general, it was very interesting, sadly I can’t find it to post here. The interviewer was very good at asking questions as well as letting his guest answer them. Of interest was his opinion of other writers, one of those he discussed was the controversial English historian David Irving. He said that Irving was a serious historian that must be seen as such. He disagreed with him on things but he was far from dismissive. I think we are often dismissive of people who have views that we simply don’t like. I think more of an open mind should be kept on historical topics as they are often subject to interpretation as well as written by the winners. With all due respect I think you may have done some research in this area, but I doubt it was enough to really know about it in depth. Shit, even historians vehemently disagree about things that are supposedly well known. I don’t see any scientist defending flat earth - do you?

“However, the Holocaust has become a sacred cow, so much so that even debating certain aspects of it may be considered anti-Semitic. As Jewish historian, Paula Hyman of Yale pointed out in a 1980 New York Times article,”

“With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to forestall political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy.”[19]

The Holocaust Industry - Norman Finkelstein

Thoroughly researched and closely argued, The Holocaust Industry is all the more disturbing and powerful because the issues it deals with are so rarely discussed.
Last edited:
Corporations, even those with "good" reputations, do horrible things.
I think this is a generally held view by most of the populace. You mention the Boeing example as "proof" and yet we have a long history of prior examples that have already established this as fact.

So what’s your point if basically the bolded statement is true? Ok, maybe I should have said ‘more proof’ instead on ‘proves’ about Boeing.

My point was that this first bolded statement was made in connection with the second bolded you chose…

Corporations, even those with ‘good’ reputations, do horrible things, yet People are willing to accept the word of companies like Pfizer without question.

You say…
I don't think this is the case at all. I'd be curious to hear why you say this

My answer to that is that at least here in the UK I would say that the vast majority of those who took the ‘vaccines’, did so without discussion with any medical rep. I suspect that they didn’t question the vaccines because of how I and others were seen as belonging to ‘the anti-vaxxer tribe’ by many friends. They blindly believed what the heard on the BBC. Doctors you say? LoL, Doctors had almost completely disappeared by that point, and they‘ve largely stayed that way - even now. I would suggest that the only chance they would have had the chance to ask someone was the person administering the dose. When you‘ve been waiting in the line for your booster I don’t think your going to be asking too many questions at that point. I’d say very few even asked about possible adverse events and even if they did would have received the standard ’safe & effective’ reply. My mum is typical of an old person who got the first couple of doses, she was given ZERO info, not even the provider (Pfizer, Moderna etc). I guess that you might say I’m ignorant about vaccines, and it’s true, I’m no expert in vaccines - but I have read some books & articles about the topic and that is a lot more than the average joe has done. I’m learning fast that although I’m cynical, I’m probably not cynical enough about a lot of things - pharmaceutical corporations and the agencies that are meant to keep them ‘honest‘ included.

You know, allow for your thoughts on the topic to maybe not be fact-based. ;)

Silence, I frequently include ‘imo’ in my posts as a ‘reminder’, but I don’t think I should include it at the end of every fucking sentence! (oh no, an F-bomb, how uncivilised). Was it Boston Legal where there was a judge who absurdly insisted people say ‘in my opinion’ every time anyone spoke?
thx for clarifying yr position. and a big double-wow!

what if you became convinced at the last election was probably fraudulent. would you consider that to be an "existential threat to democracy"?

Imo (;))
Describing the USA (and probably all other so called free countries) as a Democracy is laughable nowadays.
I‘m not sure I understand. Are you saying that Gideon Levy and Miko Peled have somehow totally missed the point or are misguided? All I was doing was agreeing with their point of view.
You previously ‘liked’ what I wrote and that you pasted in this post, it doesn’t make sense. Could you clarify please?
I'm saying holohoax is a non-starter... i.e. way, way, way NOT supported by the data.
I'm saying holohoax is a non-starter... i.e. way, way, way NOT supported by the data.

This is a non-answer to my question.

I don’t even know what a holohoaxer is, but I do know that Gideon Levy and Miko Peled are extremely unlikely to be holo-anything’s!
Anyone in the public eye or with potential to communicate broadly just will not express any opinions that might be construed as criticism of Israel/Jews/Zionists. It’s not just my opinion, the evidence for this is widespread. Who was behind the ‘anti-Semitic‘ slur against Jeremy Corbyn? Anyone who dares to speak their mind gets crucified at every turn. The pro Israel lobbies are well funded and too numerous to list.

agreed. it's not right. it's not fair. it points to a well-organized well-funded conspiracy.

BUT it has nothing to do with whether or not hitler did it.

This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post

“Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic!
That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible.

Published: MAY 20, 2012 22:31”

I say such writings are best treated as laughable.

Agreed. and a lot worse than just laughable.

Then again, we live in a " biological robot in a meaningless universe" world. i.e. social engineering/ mind control/ control the narrative is always in play.

These are the type of things I have a gripe with. Jews DO have great influence in the holywood, mainstream media and in the social media.

Agreed! my read of the situation is that we have a small group of people who used cultural/ religious heritage to advance their interests.

You seem to me to think I am possibly a ‘holohoaxer’ - fair enough, I’m not offended, but if so, the truth is I don’t even know what a holohoaxer is meant to believe! Can you perhaps give some examples?

holohoaxers are poeple who want to revise the history of ww2. they usually start with " hitler didn't really kill 6 million jews" and they go from there.

I would agree that FEarth is a Scientifically stupid argument
Ok. I get your point. I apologize for painting you with such a broad brush.

. Any Critical Discussion of the Holocaust is seen as unacceptable

Again, I have to acknowledge and accept your point. you're right, the public forum on this topic is not open and fair.

like simply questioning the 6 million number for example, that is what I in turn think is unacceptable.

I watched an interview of a Hungarian historian (John Lukacs) recently that wrote about Hitler & the war in general, it was very interesting, sadly I can’t find it to post here. The interviewer was very good at asking questions as well as letting his guest answer them. Of interest was his opinion of other writers, one of those he discussed was the controversial English historian David Irving. He said that Irving was a serious historian that must be seen as such. He disagreed with him on things but he was far from dismissive. I think we are often dismissive of people who have views that we simply don’t like. I think more of an open mind should be kept on historical topics as they are often subject to interpretation as well as written by the winners. With all due respect I think you may have done some research in this area, but I doubt it was enough to really know about it in depth.
Ok with some of that, but are you willing to acknowledge that there are some folks ( let's call them holohoaxers) who can't seem to separate zionism craziness from world war 2 history.

take for example the six million number. it's well-established. the nazis even acknowledged the number at nuremberg. multiple other historians have come to the same/similar number. I took up the topic in this thread because it seems to me that no matter how many times you pound on it holohoaxers won't let go of it. so I dug up this more recent research that documents 1.5 million deaths within a hundred day period.


this data pretty much destroys david irving's position... would you agree? on what basis/ data would you deny the six million number? more importantly, on what basis would you deny what the six million number points to... i.e. hitler and the nazis were trying to exterminate all the jews of europe.

these are historical facts. they have nothing to do with whether or not "the jews control hollywood."
Last edited:
really... Ron Utz:

Ron Unz, a California businessman and founder of the Unz Review website, whom ADL has written about previously and described as a funder of anti-Israel activists, has embraced hardcore anti-Semitism. In recent months Unz has denied the Holocaust, endorsed the claim that Jews consume the blood of non-Jews, and has claimed that Jews control the media, hate non-Jews, and worship Satan.

Unz writes that although his own knowledge of Judaism was limited, he became convinced from Shahak’s writing that everything he thought he had known about Judaism was wrong. Among Unz’s new beliefs: that religious Jews “pray to Satan almost as readily as they pray to God”; that Jews believe that “the primary reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve as the slaves of Jews”; and that Judaism permits Jews to murder non-Jews with impunity and that Judaism’s disdain for the lives of non-Jews has inspired Israel to steal and traffic in illegal organs.
(see: https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-oddities-of-the-jewish-religion/)

Channeling Shahak once again, Unz asserts that Jews believe that Christianity is “a total abomination, which must be wiped off the face of the earth,” and that “the Christian Bible represents purest evil.” Unz also claims that “many deeply religious Jews utter a prayer each and every day for the immediate extermination of all Christians.” He alleges Jews have used elaborate subterfuge to hide their views and behavior toward non-Jews.

Unz claims that Shahak’s ostensible revelations were world-altering, writing that he jokingly told a Jewish friend he discovered that “Nazism could be best be described as ‘Judaism for Wimps.’”

Unz even embraced the notion of the anti-Semitic “blood libel” canard, which claimed that Jews used the blood of Christians for their religious rituals. In typical fashion, Unz veils his own comments in the works of others, citing “Bloody Passover,” a controversial and discredited book by Ariel Toaff, to make the claim. As he often does, Unz says that while he can’t vouch for the veracity of the book, he encourages people to read it.

Sorry very late reply, with a farm and animals and our short season here, springtime means absolut chaos, spare time being an unknown quantity..
Mostly though I guess sorry for still not having disappeared and boring the brains out of everyone else...:eek::)
And to top it, back with again a horribly long post in several parts.

My apologies for this incorrigible Holohoaxer....

Rant A):

Half-humour aside-though: seems that our exchange has been deteriorating and slipping further from outset goal level 3 lately unfortunately...?
If my perhaps overly critical investigation/questions regarding the Science Mag article came over as a mere debunking exercise and thus contributed to that I am sorry, was/is sure not my intent.
If one believes it or not, when asking questions it is because being interested in reading the answers to them and since my general experience is that whenever I am baffled by something others say/write, like before -and the following below here..-, there usually is something that I am missing or misinterpreting and an answer might clear that up.
No insult intended with any of it.
Lets hope I can keep up my part to keep it from sliding to lower levels..

To start at the far -and opposit regarding my former hope to maybe keep more focused topic wise (from AH&FDR to Holocaust death toll to Reinhardt camp trains to now Child sacrifice and Unz`s character ...) end-

"Really- Ron Unz..?"

Yes.If recalling, mentioned him already last year (Did you read/listen to the linked material then?) :
Forum-thread David Brody, Romans in America:
"In case of interest- Article by an (to me so far unknown) author. Whatever one may think of his particular views on his fellow countrymen, purely factually very thorough, many useful links and large database/starting point if anyone is interested in researching the topic for him/herself:

Procedurally to understand clearly:
The link I posted this time around to the article (or audioversion of) dealing with the specific topic of this very interview "The black legend of AH and NG":

- given that you not actually counter-argue with any concrete content/data point-purely factually- does that mean you did not read any of it?

If so (if not, please correct!)- the idea/act of instead of reading/listening to what he writes factually in this short articlepart/10 min clip and -if so inclined- countering it by other equally specific data, choosing to look up /quote third parties opinions about the author as a person
(and not just anyones but fascinatingly probably the one organisation on the planet being most hostile to his work/character, the infamous ADL itself...)
and thus discrediting him by referring to his alleged writing content on a completely different topic (Judaic practices/child sacrifice) is a rather surprising one I must say -at least to me..- would that not maybe be losely comparable to "investigating" Skeptiko by looking up Jerry Coyne f.ex. ..?-

And given in addition that (at least according to my browser) a neutral Google search on his (R.Unz`s) name actually purely statistically gives more neutral/ positive results than negative (the latter suspiciously often coming from one specific political/lobbying-group) and even the wikipedia-entry about him is surprisingly nuanced (see f.ex. Ralph Nader quote/opinion about his former running-mate there..) I cant help but also wonder -paraphrasing- a bit along Steves #34 line (hoping he not minding me quoting here)- how comes you present such a one sided and rather derogatory picture?

All that probably just being one of those internet-discussions-misunderstandings (of mine) though...
and of course could also be that maybe you(/ADL) are totally right here.

If we investigate that claim keeping to the pure data/facts, hopefully fairly to all sides:

Claim: see #33 paraphrased approximately (factual objections?):

R.Unz is an anti-semitic fanatic unscholarly endorser of crazy conspiracy theories aka Shahak`s and Tuoff`s and thus generally unworthy of reading.
Claimed so by official ADL site and confirmed by you researching the claim on Unzs site you say.

Objectively seen: two plausible possibilities on the outset:

Possibility no 1:
ADL authors(/you) are right, him being a delusional Anti-Semite with crazy fanatic theories (that he-as everyone knows thanks thorough research- is actually jewish himself does not impede the theory in any way it seems, though have to admit makes me at least feel slightly disoriented.. is semitic anti-Semite a term?).

Possibility no 2.:
ADL authors employ the tactics of ad hominem attack and distorting quotes out of context to serve own bias/agenda and as excuse of not actually engaging with any given data or in honest dialogue/self criticism.

Objective incriminating criteria/indicators helpful to investigate each fairly (or suggestions to better ones?) maybe(?):

No 1:

a1) His theories being heavily opinionated/polemic, presented in an agitated unscholarly manner(?)
b1) Him citing no scholarly original source-material nor any real objective evidence points for his remarks(?)
c1) Being closed to all critique (either self-critique or that coming from others)(?)

No 2:

a2) Pure quantitative data amount actually known about the person talked so critically about and the greater context of the quotes cited regarding that article about that specific topic (child sacrifice) and the originally linked article. Above a certain quantity no 1 would be indicated, below no 2.(?)
b2) Willingness only to investigate no 1 and not no 2..(?)
c2) Being closed to critique (self-or from others)(?)

Regarding a1),b1),c1):

When researching beyond the few minutes/sentences mark, letting the author speak for himself:

The article in question is: (as even ADL mentions)
if interested (55 min) audio-file here:

If too much to listen/read the whole thing, here a few whole excerpts for maybe short summary/feel:

A) Regarding writing/quoting of author ISRAEL SHAHAK he exactly writes :

Part 1 (Israel Shahak and the Middle East)
3rd paragraph:
"A few years earlier, I had discovered The London Economist, as it was then called, and it had quickly become my favorite publication, which I religiously devoured cover-to-cover every week. And as I read the various articles about the Middle East conflict in that publication, or others such as the New York Times, the journalists occasionally included quotes from some particularly fanatic and irrational Israeli Communist named Israel Shahak, whose views seemed totally at odds with those of everyone else, and who was consequently treated as a fringe figure. Opinions that seem totally divorced from reality tend to stick in one’s mind, and it took only one or two appearances from that apparently die-hard and delusional Stalinist for me to guess that he would always take an entirely contrary position on every given issue."

5th paragraph:
"And around that same time, I noticed a long letter in The Economist by Shahak which seemed to me the final proof of his insanity. He claimed that it was obvious that Sharon had marched to Beirut with the intent of organizing a massacre of the Palestinians, and that this would shortly take place. When the slaughter indeed occurred not long afterward, apparently with heavy Israeli involvement and complicity, I concluded that if a crazy Communist fanatic like Shahak had been right, while apparently every mainstream journalist had been so completely wrong, my understanding of the world and the Middle East required total recalibration. Or at least that’s how I’ve always remembered those events from a distance of over thirty-five years."

7th paragraph:
"Then the 9/11 attacks returned foreign policy and the Middle East to the absolute center of our national agenda, and I eventually read somewhere or other that Shahak had died at age 68 only a few months earlier, though I hadn’t noticed any obituary. Over the years, I’d seen some vague mention that during the previous decade he’d published a couple of stridently anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist books, just as might be expected from a hard-line Communist fanatic, and during the early 2000s I started seeing more and more references to these works, ironically coming from fringe sources of the anti-Semitic Far Right, thereby once again proving that extremists flock together."

2.part (The Unusual Doctrines of Traditional Judaism)
"My first surprise was that Shahak’s writings included introductions or glowing blurbs by some of America’s most prominent public intellectuals, including Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, and Edward Said. Praise also came from quite respectable publications such as The London Review of Books, Middle East International, and Catholic New Times while Allan Brownfeld of The American Council for Judaism had published a very long and laudatory obituary. And I discovered that Shahak’s background was very different than I had always imagined. He had spent many years as an award-winning Chemistry professor at Hebrew University, and was actually anything but a Communist... My casual assumptions about his views and background had been entirely in error."

2nd paragraph:
"Once I actually began reading his books, and considering his claims, my shock increased fifty-fold. Throughout my entire life, there have been very, very few times I have ever been so totally astonished as I was after I digested Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, whose text runs barely a hundred pages. In fact, despite his solid background in the academic sciences and the glowing endorsements provided by prominent figures, I found it quite difficult to accept the reality of what I was reading."

-All the following paragraphs are direct quotes from Shahaks mentioned book(s) and this is where the ADL-quotes ("Jewish prayers against christians" etc...)are taken out of (presented as Unzs own by them as it sounds?)
These end with him finally summarizing his writing/articel on Shahak with these 2 quotes:

3rd paragraph:
"Even with all of that due diligence, I must emphasize that I cannot directly vouch for Shahak’s claims about Judaism."

3.part (The Attitude of Judaism Towards Non-Jews)
12th paragraph:
"Given the complexity and exceptionally controversial nature of this subject matter, I would urge readers who find this topic of interest to spend three or four hours reading Shahak’s very short book, and then decide for themselves whether his claims seem plausible and whether I may have inadvertently misunderstood them."

-That is it for Shahak in that article.-

B) Regarding CHILD SACRIFICE/ TOAFF Hypothesis Endorsement claims:

-The articles chapter in question concerning this hypothesis -again- consists of quotations out of a certain book.
Namely the 2007 published academic study called "Blood Passover" by Ariel Toaff, professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv, and himself the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome:-

5th part (The controversial scholarship of Ariel Toaff)
3rd paragraph:
"In 2007, he published the Italian edition of his academic study Blood Passovers, based on many years of diligent research, assisted by his graduate students and guided by the suggestions of his various academic colleagues, with the initial print run of 1,000 copies selling out on the first day. Given Toaff’s international eminence and such enormous interest, further international distribution, including an English edition by a prestigious American academic press would normally have followed. But the ADL and various other Jewish-activist groups regarded such a possibility with extreme disfavor, and although these activists lacked any scholarly credentials, they apparently applied sufficient pressure to cancel all additional publication. Although Prof. Toaff initially attempted to stand his ground in stubborn fashion, he soon took the same course as Galileo, and his apologies naturally became the basis of the always-unreliable Wikipedia entry on the topic.."

2nd paragraph:
"I personally have no professional expertise whatsoever in Jewish ritual traditions, nor the practices of Medieval Jewry.."

-Following paragraphs are again direct quotations out of that controversial study and directly related material by other given sources.-

All finally summed up with these words:

"Anyway, I lack the expertise to effectively judge the likelihood of the Toaff Hypothesis, so I would invite those interested to read Toaff’s book or better yet the related articles and decide for themselves."

So, investigations end regarding Unz.

Regarding a2),b2),c2):

Have asked the questions regarding those (both in- and directly) already in the beginning of this post and they will hopefully be answered/shown in that context, no need to re-iterate here then.

Total investigations end.
What picture did the indicators paint ?

Personally I think the verdict is clear. No wonder the Anti Defamation League`s defamation/moral stoning... such craziness to quote academic studies/ material by actually jewish and quite reputable academics it seems, stating "found it hard to accept the reality" of it, but
"invite anyone interested to read those books and decide for themselves whether the author and/or he is wrong" while professing to
"lack the expertise/knowledge to vouch/judge himself..."?
Only Idiots like me could ever read such fanatic garbage by this Anti-Semite (Semite).

If wanting to go on in this manner, my tip for the ADL- actually R.Unz is making himself -and seemingly by choice- probably one of the easiest targets to ad hominem and all kinds of guilt-by-association attacks by the type of other authors he allows to freely publish on his online-platform and his seeming total hands-off policy towards censoring/influencing any of their work, even in kamikaze-tradition officially stating he wants to offer an open platform to all those censored from other sites...
And some of those really push the envelope with provocative political incorrectness and -imho- not always high quality content, as on the other hand in real smorgasbord style also very renowned authors and surprisingly high quality content.
Interestingly -and pretty unique -also giving voice to writers from all political sides, the most radical left and right and all between.
So, really a field day for any thus inclined to attack him...

In fact though I am glad this honing in on his style/quality came up for I was actually wondering about that before in this exchanges context:

The above excerpts give a good taste for his style and content of writing, the articles pertinent to our topic here -and linked to by me above- are written in exactly the same manner.
Being simply compilations of direct quotes/summaries of entire scholarly books (according to him criteria being the most reputable he could find on given topic in question) which he has researched himself and whichs content he thus re-presents in compressed form, usually ending with professing his own knowledge being limited and invitations for anyone to research them and decide for themselves.
One thing that strikes one is actually his level-headed tone and journalistic professionalism that shines through, even when navigating the most controversial topic-minefield (like this one or f.ex immigration and others) and the absence of any loud opinions or cheap polemics.

To my question-
If comparing practically-
His approach to our topic of Holocaust revisionism (retraceable on his website and interviews):
After encountering it by accident via a Reason-mag article without having ever given any thought before, he
-though sounding crazy at first- decided to simply research its data and to do that seeks out the most scholarly/reputable authors works on both sides available and reads ca 15-20 books and related material before forming any
(in Unzs case-if one reads his material finds them actually being mostly surprisingly humble-as quoted above-)?opinion.
Being what -as described before- my approach was as well (not that that means anything in itself of course), finding it relatively hard imagining other ways to get to some objective truth/"follow the data wherever it leads"?

Not to piss-contest-as said- just for data and hope of curing me from my probable misunderstandings and with all due respect- I am just a bit baffled by some of your -to my probably misinterpreting ear- rather large and at times rather polemic statements:
"The big stuff, i.e Nazi plans.. is unchallenged",
"Holohoaxers get worked up...",
"Holohoaxers..same ol stuff.." etc..?
While you -as said please correct if wrong- still have not read even a part of 1 scholarly book (on either side) and are very sure not to be enticed by my incredibly tempting openmind-challenge (point 5. last long post)to read (in my amazing nobleness even lowered to :) 30 pages over 3-6 months?
Has of course nothing to do whatsoever with which opinion/position one may come to in the end, each to his own, but simply the research having done before and as an old listener I know you have done great detailed research before in many other fields.

And all just subjective -and probably annoying- musings of mine and apologies for even more to come:
A Holohoaxers Journey Part 1 B)

If maybe helpfull to go full circle back to how it all started -

Is this the core maybe ( Brody, Romans in America thread):
#24 :
" I come to find out he's somewhat of a holocaust denier. I mean, beyond the morality affront that comes with being an apologist for such evil, there's the wacky denial of history... thousands of living witnesses. it's just insane. "

The big stuff... i.e. Nazi plans (and implementation) for the systematic, deliberate, physical annihilation of the European Jews remains unchallenged. Have you seen the Wannsee Conference documents ( http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005477)?

Is it this, that in your opinion/experience there is this vast foundation of unchallenged/-able evidence that renders all those detailed questions and data points irrelevant, thus no need to look at the details?

IF so, I think I and -at least according to my experience- even the most ardent revisionists, totally get that to some degree actually.
Looked to me (and those others I have met) exactly that way too on first encountering and indeed, the feel of the morality affront maybe being the most tangible.
How could anyone attack those victims /memory that have suffered so much already and deny something that is so obviously established and proven, especially since we have all those sites, the testimonies, the footage and most importantly -the thousands of witnesses..?
Appearing laughable to a point where indeed immediately the flat earth-topic comes to mind and it seems like the ultimate crazy-line in a way, even worse than flat earth for adding the feel of moral revolt towards violating victims of horrendous suffering.
Was mine at least for most of my life as well and an entirely sound reaction it seems..

But, it appears, it is then that the ways part:
There is group
A) (the vast majority of people it seems) who (seemingly often for the rest of their lives actually) stay at place in front of that abyssian crazy-line and there is group
B) those who at some point simply say "sounds nuts, but lets just see.." and simply cross the line to explore what they actually present in detail-fwiw- often afterwards reporting having been very surprised for finding very different things than expected.
(And there is a third somewhat hybrid group of people who figuratively speaking put half a toe/foot/leg over that threshold for a second only to immediately retract again and safely again join the A)-host in front of the threshold, now re-assuringly declaring to all there: "Seen it all now, all BS and nothing at all to see there!".)

Interesting (imho) description of such B)-journey f.ex. -besides the mentioned R.Unz also by- Skeptiko-forum member (hopefully ok that I mention/cite him here and hopefully not distorting his content) Hurmanetars posts here: #50 of Romans in America thread and earlier ones in older Jan Irvin thread..

Back to topic here:

If that famous UBS (Unchallenged Big Stuff) is the core here, I would very much like to-and that is what I have been trying in this exchange to get to - know what you exactly mean by that, because
-disregarding now for this arguments sake here that purely technically it is exactly the challenging of that particular big stuff (i.e Extermination Program) that the whole revisionist movement is founded on as far as I can see-
I would find it very interesting to learn more about that, for so far my research has been incomplete it feels like:

And so to maybe get back to the original proposal:

".. I would suggest that the best way to get there is to drill into and have you present what you think may be viable / interesting / possible within the holocaust alternative history realm... because I have absolutely no problem with folks digging into this topic. "

Fwiw- if interesting to anyone my experience with that has so far been:

The UNCHALLENGED-phenomenon/state can mean 2 things:
Either it being rock solidly founded or may be/appear thus only for the same
reason explained/ summed up by Penny Satori on one great earlier show (dealing with/summarizing the Watts article "Nothing Paranormal about NDEs..") paraphrasing :
"Of course there is nothing paranormal about NDEs..If one ignores/casts away all that is"

Translated to our topic-
Of course that "Big Stuff" is all unchallenged if one never reads/ brushes aside anything those challenging it present. Which unfortunately, in my experience at least, seems to be exactly what mainstream historiography/academia (and maybe generally societal/public institutions) usually does (do).

Whether the former or latter is the case being usually extremely easy to determine by the criterium if those presenting it as such simply factually correctly know/can state the data points of what those scholars that at least technically are/have been challenging it (which in most cases- like the ADLs authors f.ex.- very obviously is not the case at all) present.

Often it seems to be a case of circular reasoning- because it is so unchallenged nothing challenging it must be examined.
The overall situation being very similar the unfortunate classic "mainstream academia"/skeptic phenomenon (a la Novella/ Harris/ Radford):
A seemingly complete (in itself) system of "established knowledge" from which its proponents ridicule all those fringe researchers and demand the presentation of "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.." to disprove it("Everybody in renowned Academia/ Science/ Historiography knows/agrees.."), while of course professing that "if just shown the "hidden" evidence they/whole academia would change their/its mind immmediately...".

Which in their case anyway reveals itself to be a complete lie in practice for they never really engage with any presented alternative research anyway, but in classic 180 degree pseudo-skeptical approach look at everything extremely critically/dismissive, except the one thing standing in the very centre of it all, their own belief system, and infact instead show an astonishingly strong allergic reaction to having any of it examined critically as well.

Regarding and back to Holocaust orthodoxy- anyone challenging it -ime- finds him/herself immediately put in the "when did you stop beating your wife"-position.., however much data is presented is/can always be brushed aside by reference to the mythical "established knowledge", plus the bonus of obligatory name calling and moral defamation ..

And seen from the formers perspective, one can perhaps even understand that it can certainly look that way, as described above.

Interesting though, if one actually examines what exactly this referred to UBS-foundation consists of in detail -NOT in a a Ben Redford debunking mode ala Psychic Detective Episodes using irrelevant details to get out of the greater context, but contrary, expand both context and details - one is -in my experience at least- quickly surprised to find a phenomenon like the "turtles all the way down"- or "search-for-the-atom"-effects.
Against all expectations and what it appears like at the surface, instead of the ever more solid/concrete beneath, it gets more and more diffus.

Whether or not the Revisionists may be correct or not in the end, in my experience the mainstream Holocaust narrative has a very surprising characteristic of being solid not by what it presents/examines, but what it does not.
Thus naturally appearing the more solid the more one looks superficially and the less one actually researches/knows about the details or context.

Specific example:
Not to debunk, but simply to investigate/ask some questions, as said-
As already delved into in #27/28:

- the WANNSEE PROTOKOLL, usually immediately brought up as -one of or the- best proof for an Extermination Program in casual debates. On surface looking impressive as well .

But when reading the actual 16page document and especially in its german original version in detail one finds very strange aspects (10plus of them already cited in # 47 of former thread...so no need to repeat) instead and the quite baffling (even by mainstream historians never disputed it seems- see Lipstadt, Dawidowicz, Hilberg..) realization that it actually does not contain a single word about killing anyone (or as said, please quote if know otherwise), but is at face-level merely an exact detailed description of organized expulsion (exactly like the Potsdam protocol ironically).

The entire argument resting instead on the use of one (or few) specific german expression that is(are) claimed to turn the texts on face level context into a secret code.

So instead of the ultimate proof one finds oneself now referred to a second claim, that is supposed to then turn the document finally into the promised one.
Which is a rather anti-start, but as a (new) claim that is of course fair enough, could/may very well be thus in the end.

When going along with the detour though, now looking into the fundament of that very claim- namely mostly the infamous expression "Endlösung" (final goal-solution) and "Evakuierung" etc. meaning code for physical annihilation and thus legitimizing the Wannsee protocoll as evidence-
again same strange phenomenon, instead of the tangible, it gets in its turn more confusing very quickly, f.ex.:

1. even mainstream history tells us (wikipedia ) that the term "Final Solution" was used since 1939 and actually always exactly spelled out in detail in all those official documents mentioning it.
(if interested to check for oneself: here the original documents: -translations available for those not understanding german-
a) letter Göring to Heydrich 30.jan 1939:
b) letter Heydrich to Ribbentropp 24.june 1940
c) letter Göring to Heydrich 31.july 1941
d) letter by M. Luther of foreign office describing the details of general policy towards solution of jewish question:
(And many more continuing until/through 1945..)

Those meaning -alleged at least until 1942- subsequently :
the encouragment of emigration (incl. Havaara agreement), then plan to create a homeland for all jewish people under the reich on the island of Madagascar (see Madagascar-plan) or to find another similar "territorial solution" (original quote out of mentioned letter 24.june 1940).
And mainstream history usually does not dispute that -until Wannsee..- all these "Solutions to the Jewish question" meant exactly what they said on paper, emigration meant emigration, evacuation evacuation and territorial (final) solution what it said. (Objections?)

2. The exact term was also used ironically for the czech people -"Endlösung der tschechischen Frage"- (as also paradoxically by the czech state after the war for the expulsion of the german people) with no historian ever claiming in that(those) case(s) having anything to do with extermination whatsoever.
(quote Wiki:
"Final Solution of the Czech Question, a Nazi Germany plan for a complete Germanization of Czech Lands
Final Solution of the German Question, a post-war expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia, Final Solution was the term Czechoslovak President Edvard Beneš used to describe the deportations".) (Objections?)

3.There is (by f.ex.Raul Hilberg officially confirmed, see his testimony in Zuendel vs Crown 1984 trial) a rather complete trail of documentary evidence dated AFTER the Wannsee conference showing that actually the "Final Solution" was on Hitlers order to be postponed until the end of the war (f.ex. document PS-4025, written by chief of the german chancellery Hans Heinrich Lammers).

(If interested to check for oneself further examples:
-On June 24, 1942, Hitler announced at his headquarters that after the war he would “rigorously defend his position that he would hammer on one city after another until the Jews came out and emigrated to Madagascar or some other national state" for the Jews.
-September 1942: “Green Map” for the “Administration of the Economy in the Occupied Eastern Regions states:” states that “After the War,the Jewish question will be solved overall throughout Europe,” which is why until then everything would merely be “partial measures.” “Thuggish measures” against Jews would be “unworthy of Germans and must
be avoided by all means.”
– In Dec. 1942, ministerial adviser Walter Maedel summarizing the Jewish policy of National Socialism: “the gradual freeing of the Reich from Jews by deporting them to the east."
– On Dec. 28, 1942, the Reich`s Concentration Camp Inspector Richard Glücks gave the following instructions to the commanders of concentration camps:
“The head camp physicians have to ensure, by all means at their disposal, that the death rates in the individual camps decrease significantly. [...] More than heretofore, the camp physicians have to oversee nutrition of the prisoners and in accordance with the directors, make recommendations for improvement to the camp commandants. Furthermore these recommenda-
tions are not to remain on paper, they are to be effectively carried out by the camp physicians. [...] The Reichsführer SS -Himmler-has ordered that the death rate must unconditionally decrease!"
( all official archives documents, re-checkable by online searching via dates and names/phrases, off chance anyone interested...)
And so on...throughout all following years.)

Whole books and monographs have been written on all those points and many more, so no use to expand further here, for only point being in this context:

This is where at least I found myself (-as said, wondering "What am I missing?"..-) after just probing one layer beneath the official unchallengable Big Stuff-proof:

A document ( even ridiculed by mainstream scholars like Yehuda Bauer, professor of Holocaust Studies at the Avraham Harman Institute in Jerusalem, as mentioned before..) containing really nothing of the sort, instead a new claim of a secret code in its turn instead of solid proof resting on surprisingly weak and contradictory assertions/interpretations of one-sided nature, excluding infact more numerous documentary (and testimonial) evidence to the contrary.
-And most of all interesting, how despite all this, (to quote Bauer himself:) “The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at” (The Canadian Jewish News, 20 January 1992, p. 8)...-?

All these points of course proving no more nor less than they do each in their specific case, conclusion jumping regarding the whole holocaust (Extermination-) narrative being wrong or such would be hasty and so far not justifieable, as far as I can see.
But -maybe a justifieable assessment could be that whatever else is presented, one claim at a time, being worthy of a critical examination as well and accepting /reciting anything on blind face value being definitely not justifieable either?
A Holohoaxers Journey Part 2 C)

Regarding the maybe supposed strongest bastion of the usually cited unchallengable proof for the Extermination Program:

WITNESSES/ testimonies.

In greater context :

As said, have personally always been interested in the phenomenon that "Victors write history" (as well maybe "The first casualty of war is always truth"), which seems strangely enough a generally accepted wisdom (was mentioned several times during the former thread as well interestingly here..) but/ and that interestingly the 2 greatest wars seem to be then regarded as exceptions to the rule (which could of course also be the case).

And what that might mean practically exactly. If they do it, how and how can we know whether and in which way in the particular topic at hand?

After some more research personally my impression being that it seems actually far more simple than I thought- appears to be just like we (friends and I) did when we were kids, got into a fight at school and had to tell our parents what happened, somehow amazingly the following narrative turned out presenting everything that I/we did as absolutely nothing wrong and negligable, but what the other guy(s) did as horrendous and vile, deserving the most severe punishment...
In practical terms the simple rule was/is always:
a)whitewash what I/we did to max and
b)blackwash what the other did to max.
Interestingly enough one quickly finding out (at least I did...) that it actually is not effective to tell outright lies, for them being damn arduous to keep up and relatively easy to discover later on, but the smart way is to employ kernels of truths or half/quarter..-truths and then by means of omissions, taking out of context/ exaggerating aspects on the one hand and letting out/ minimizing/ fanciful adding on the other creating an amazingly effective propagandistic narrative.
("Official" narrative of my schoolyard-fight with Rolf -where me punching him in the face was the original trigger- being "He pushed me so I fell to the ground and hit my knee"- which is exactly true, he did -backed up with objective forensic evidence, showing the bruises on my knee..- so no lies, I just elegantly left out the (my) first part. -Worked great btw.)

Re. WW2/Holocaust narrative-
If back to specific example here:
Again-not to debunk, just to ask-
the already mentioned, world famous report by Eisenhower on the liberation of the Ohrdruf camp:

-Set aside that one could wonder what Ohrdruf/German reich camps are supposed to have to do with socalled Extermination(-camps)-

#27/28 Brody thread

In general:

1.) What is the exact difference between an objective honest presentation and propaganda?

It actually was studying the USHMM website that made me look that up, because I became unsure I knew exactly the definition-

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented."

2.) When taking the Eisenhower account: On the surface again -seems like a very convincing picture.
Taking one step back/deeper:

-Disregarding for now the question whether- purely regarding the style- this a sober report by an objective observer or rather emotion-appealing party-witness`-

To distill the pure facts from the narrative presented:

1.-Several dead bodies (exact number not mentioned),
2.-20 plus people recently killed. Reasons why, under what circumstances unknown.
3.-A concentration/pow camp in total disaray, starvation conditions, overcrowding, sickness, miserable hygienic conditions.(Due to immediate ensuing forensic/medical research by american medical team under Dr.C.P.Larson -see book "Crime doctor"-published forensic causes of death of the corpses mainly: typhus/typhoid fever, dysentery, starvation/malnutrition.)
4. Small grates for burning dead bodies.
Anything objective left out?

All fair enough. Miserable place obviously.

On the other side purely factual-
What did this camp have (according to Wiki and other mainstream sources) in contrast to what not:

a) Shelter:
-Yes, brick-and barrack buildings including sanitary facilities, though overcrowded.

b) Inspections/ aid fom The international Red Cross:
-Yes. To some degree at least.

c) Medical facilities/ attention:
-Yes, though limited, especially at wars end.

1. When comparing fair to all sides to avoid double standards:
No one is disputing that actually all parties during WW2 (and before and after) were using/having concentration camps, correct? If want to check:

2. In detail here- regarding the very authors (Eisenhowers) own (and other allied, french etc.) prisoncamps (Rheinwiesen and other) in 1945 had:
(according to Wiki)

a) Shelter:
Neither buldings, tents, matrasses, straw, blankets or clothing, prisoners had to dig/sleep/defecate in holes on/in/ the open ground.

b) IRC aid/inspections :
Officially refused inspections and relief/aid from the IRC and other organizations. Local populus by Eisenhower-decree (Frankfurt, 1945)under threat of execution forbidden to deliver any food/aid.

c) Medical facilities/personell/attention: No.
Prisoners left to own devices.

-Prisoners seem to not even have been individually registered usually.

Any factual objections?

(If interestingly maybe as sidenote- actually Dachau and other such camps were used by the American/British Army to incarcerate the german&other pows/civilians after the war and some of those inmates who experienced the camp under both former german and later american rule later published books, comparing the conditions under both.
-If interested: Comparison Dachau under german and american rule:
Gert Naumann, Besiegt und “befreit”. Ein Tagebuch hinter Stacheldraht in Deutschland 1945-1947, Druffel, Leoni
“Arthur Haulot, Lagertagebuch. Januar 1943 - Juni 1945,” Dachauer Hefte. Studien und Dokumente zur Geschichte
der nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslager, 1(1) (1985), pp. 129-203. -)
(For equal reports on the conditions in the french camps 45-47/49 -if interested see f.ex. J.Bacque`s books, for the russian`s A. Solzhenitsyn`s)

In greater context-

Ohrdruf was an auxiliary camp to Dachau. Meaning -purely geographically and timeline-wise- to get there coming from Italy/France Mr Eisenhower and his men on their way there passed, among others :

through/by the sites of:

-the Canicatti-, Biscari-, Audoville-, Chenogne-, Jungholzhausen-, Treseburg-, Lippach massacres (see Wiki),
committed by his troops
(Death toll of the already surrendered prisoners, adult civilians and children : around 200 ).

past/through the cities of

-Pforzheim -ca 4 hours southwest of Ohdruf-
98% of the city destroyed by carpet bomb raids 6 weeks earlier.
Death toll/effectiveness:
17000 civilians killed within 22 minutes (Wiki).

-(infamous) Dresden -2,5 hours northeast of Ohdruf-
(packed with fleeing eastern refugees), according to wikipedia death toll:
min 25000 civilians killed in 2 night-raids, mostly women and children.

(If interested -here picture of partial view of the heaps of 6865 civilian corpses and the grates they were burned on on 2/25/1945:

(-as well as minimum 23 other -from Freiburg..... to Muenster- cities of grand total 160 large cities and 850 townships bombed by american and british airforces.
Total deathtoll -wiki-
600.000 civilian casualties, of which
70000 children.

So, to recap, Eisenhower:

-Traveled past :

30+ sites where he/ his forces

a)-had recently killed fifty-thousand plus civilians,
b)-seen thousands of those bodies were being/had been burned on grates weeks before-

-Ohrdruf site where

c)-the sight of a burning grate and 20 corpses make him write a world famous report about feeling sick in stomach/nose.

Going on to condemn/emphasize widely the barbarity of german camps with their insanitary and chaotic poor conditions.
While his own actually had worse.

- Might an objective observer maybe rightfully wonder if this could be a rather perfect example of the above mentioned "victors write history"-hypocrisy/apologism-technique?

If full circle back to (his) original report and the question what might be an objective vs propagandistic one:

As comparison :
Official report by another contemporary - british doctor- eyewitness, same sort of camp, but with even far worse conditions/ death toll (Bergen Belsen- origin of the worldwide known "bulldozing corpses"- footage ):

British physician Dr. Russell Barton
(spent a month in 1945 in Bergen-Belsen as a young medical stu-
dent -if recalling, the famous IMT-film "Nazi-concentration camps" mentions the team he was part of):

“Most people attributed the conditions of the inmates to deliberate intention on the part of the Ger-
mans. [...] Inmates were eager to cite examples of brutality and neglect, and visiting journalists from
different countries interpreted the situation according to the needs of propaganda at home. [...] Ger-
man medical officers told me that it had been increasingly difficult to transport food to the camp for
some months. Anything that moved on the autobahns was likely to be bombed. [...] I was surprised to
find records, going back for two or three years, of large quantities of food cooked daily for distribution.
At that time I became convinced, contrary to popular opinion, that there had never been a policy of de-
liberate starvation. This was confirmed by the large number of well-fed inmates. [...] The major rea-
sons for the state at Belsen were disease, gross overcrowding by central authority, lack of law and or-
der in the huts, and inadequate supplies of food, water and drugs.
(footnote 92, book: Dissecting the Holocaust)

Maybe related american witness report:

From biography of fighter pilot Chuck Yeager: in the Fall of 1944 his fighter group was:

“[…] assigned an area fifty miles by fifty miles and ordered to strafe anything that moved. […] We weren’t asked how we felt zapping people. It was a miserable, dirty mission, but we all took off on time and did it. […] We were ordered to commit an atrocity, pure and simple, but the brass who approved this action probably felt justified because wartime Germany wasn’t easily divided between ‘innocent civilians’ and its military machine. The farmer tilling his potato field might have been feeding German troops.."
Chuck Yeager, Yeager. An Autobiography, Bantam Books, New York 1985, p. 79.

So, at least I started wondering a bit of these accounts, which might actually belong to the former/latter grouping..?

As said, thus my subjective annoying wonderings..and sorry to say, more posts to come:
A Holohoaxers Journey Part 3 D)

Regarding the main bulk of the mentioned strongest proof for the UBS-

the THOUSANDS OF WITNESSES and accompaning morality question(/-affront):

And simultaneously the perhaps most fascinating phenomenon of the entire situation (imho):

-The seeming usual practical impossibility of simply having dispassionate dialogues/arguments/investigations into this topic, the emotionality that seems to take over instead of a simple rational, fair-to-all-sides look like in any other criminal (court) case and that it seems established rules of our judiciary are often brushed off by some agitated hinting to a certain special "something" about this topic..?

-What this exactly is supposed to be I personally would like very much to find out, as said before, but fascinatingly even that never seems to go anywhere, it seems so special that it is not even allowed to examine what this speciality actually is..-?
Objectively, personally at least, I can find absolutely nothing justifieable exceptional, it seems simply a criminal case as any tens/hundreds else?
Neither the sort of alleged crime (ethnic cleansing / genocide) nor the victim number (alleged 5-6 milllion) are special in the great historic scheme in any way, as mentioned before, far more severe ( Russias 20 million Bolshevik victims, Americas 20plus million, Africas ten millions....) actually having occured, so what is it supposed to be here?-

Here as anywhere else it boils down to simply a prosecution and defendant side, each entitled to its rights and responsibilities and the established rules of fair jurisprudence to apply of course regarding the process and handling of evidence, including witness-testimony..?
(Any objections?)

The thus applying established hierarchy of evidence value being (in reverse order)
3. Oral (witness testimony),
2. Documentary,
1. Forensic.

The evidence of lowest rank, testimony, then being further subdivided into "neutral" witness- and "party" witness-testimony, with the latter again having the lowest rank in value (for the witness obviously can-theoretically- be tainted by personal/group gains resulting from it).

So, to formulate the absolutely forbidden (in this only special case) fact-
According to our officially respected rule of law the main pillar of evidence presented for the "Holocaust" belongs to the lowest rank possible, testimonies by -obvious- party witnesses (namely the mostly jewish/communist inmates of the camps).
(Any objections?)

Procedurally according to same jurisprudence non-negotiable rule also being:
every testimony has to be independantly verified and be extensively cross-examined before being accepted as having any value, without it having none.

-All this of course meaning not more nor less than it says, simply outlaying the rules that all sides have to abide by in any fair system of/for justice.-

Back to original topic:

In my experience at least, it is interesting to see that the greatest majority of people talking about it never usually think about/ define what they actually mean by "the Holocaust" and either un-or consciously lump all un-and imaginable kind of different things into one foggy mess under that term. Especially the media seems to love doing that.

The following main 2 different aspects especially:

A) The persecution, expulsion and forced relocation of Jews (and others) into concentration/labour camps, in the course of which -as well as many other sad happenings during that (war)time (armed conflicts, collateral damage, -legal/illegal- partisan reprisals, excessive force, extra-judicial killings, wartime-atrocities, pandemics...)- many (estimated often around ballpark 1 million) inexcusably died.

B) The/An alleged Mass-Extermination Program and its execution mostly on specific mass extermination sites (Extermination camps) mainly by use of gas/asphyxiation chambers (with millions of victims).

The distinction being paramount.

1.Claiming that revisionists deny any of A) nor its condemnable immorality proofs actually only how little the one putting the claim forward has bothered to research what they actually say/claim versus what not.
No scholar -ime- denying that such (and other) ethnic persecution/cleansing is always inexcusable of course, whoever perpetrates/suffers it (surprisingly-if one bothers to read- infact most of the most prominent, f.ex. G.Rudolf, C. Mattogno, D. Cole, P. Rassinier, M. Weber, O`Keefe..... seem actually highly critical/opposed to the NS ideology and politics in their writings).

2.Regarding the (in)famous "thousands of witnesses":
-and disregarding for this arguments sake the omnipresent term "Holocaust survivor" being extremely broad, officially encompassing "all who at any time came under german influence (1939-45) with negative consequences for them personally (thus f.ex also including all who either in-or voluntarily just moved from one place to another or spent all war years abroad)"-

1. In pure numbers, "HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS":
ca 3-5 MILLION
-in 1945, of which still alive today are ca. 800000 -according to latest Jerusalem university studies-(Impication via math being: the latter were ca. 5-10 years old at the time).

(see f.ex. Yad Vashem-files, Spielbergs Shoah foundation etc.- out of which the USHMM testimonies and similar are mostly taken). Objections?


(Percentage of witness testimonies B)- A) ca 0,5%-99,5%.
F.ex. Main Extermination camp Auschwitz: official survivors: ca 200000, witnesses come forward with -mostly though unfortunately unverified/not first hand, except see below- extermination testimony: 100-1000)

4. OUT OF 2. AND 3. INDEPENDANTLY VERIFIED AND MAINLY REFERRED TO to in all standard scholar works (see book lists in this thread, including the Science Mag`s!) and appearing in court:

Concretely, for the main 2 largest claimed Extermination sites/camps:

(most infamous) Auschwitz:

Rudolf Vrba, Alfred Wetzler, Miko Nyizli, Filip Mueller, Henryk Tauber, Arnold Friedman, Rudolf Höss, Kurt Gerstein, Johann Paul Kramer, Percy S Broad, Richard Böck, David Olere, Michal Kula, Adolf Rögner, E. Rosenberg, J.-F. Steiner, M.-C. Vaillant-Couturier and S. Shmaglevskaya, Hermann Langbein, Eugon Kogon, Bruno Baum, Janda Weiss, Eli Wiesel, Primo Levi, Dario Gabbai(and brothers), Czes á aw Mordowicz, Henryk Mandelbaum, Jan Karski, Arnost Rosin, Dr Henry Heller, Konrad Morgen.

(-please add of course-if personally researched individually (in contrast to some names cited nebulously somewhere) and independantly verified in a way as described above-, would interest me to know, expand my list and research their testimony as well!-)

Yankiel Wiernik, Henryk Poswolski, Aron Czechowicz, Abe Kon, Oskar Strawczynski, Samuel Reisman, Aleksander Kudlik, Hejnoch Brenner, Stanislaw Kon, Eugeniusz Turowski, Henryk Reichman, Szyja Warszawski, Leon Finkelsztej (Finkelstein), Abraham Bomba.
As supplementary evidence, statements of eleven Polish railway workers (see official polish state/Z.Lukaszkiewicz report/compilation 1945)
(-same here, welcome to add as above-)

2 (!).
Namely: Rudolf Vrba and Arnold Friedman (-see transcripts Zuendel vs Crown 1984.)
(If interested, a rather objective documentary on the trial, consisting of merely news-clips out of mainstream canadian news outlets own reporting is available online -in uncensored countries- called "the great holocaust trial 1984".)

-If anyone wants to argue for IMT/ post war west german/Jerusalem/soviet trials, welcome of course, but please include judicial consequences of art.18, 19 and 21 of London Agreement and art.7, paragraph 1 of transition treaty/ art.139 German Grundgsetz into argument (?):
otherwise as above please add of course if known more.

(-Regarding the specific context of these dozens exact testimonies and how they correspond (or not) with the forensic evidence will be dealt with later.

Just few short quotes/excerpts maybe to get a feel, not to debunk, just for facts/data:

"Always."-A.Friedman. Answer to Question whether he heard rumours going around in the camp. Crown vs Zuendel trial 1984
"Prisoners were pumped full of water until they exploded.", Jeff Lyon, Chicago Tribune, Jan 19, 1978, pp. 1, 14
"Child survived six gassings in (-nonexistent) gas chamber at Bergen-Belsen"; Moshe Peer in Canadian newspaper below.
"Woman survived three gassings because the Nazis kept running out of gas." Witness testimony reported in the same Canadian newspaper following -and also alleged by British politician Michael Howard- Independent, Jul. 3, 2004
"There was a bear and an eagle kept in a cage that devoured a Jew a day", Witness Morris Hubert about Buchenwald.
"SS operation in a crematory made sausage from human flesh; “RIW” mean-ing “Reine Juden-Wurst” (Pure Jewish Sausage)"-David Olère
"Railroad cars disappear on ramp at (non-existent) underground crematory at Auschwitz"- SS Judge Konrad Morgen, quoted by Danuta Czech,
"Mass murder by felling trees: victims compelled to climb trees which were then cut down"- alleged at IMT by Eugon Kogon.
"A small village was provisionally erected, with temporary structures, and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By means of this newly invented weapon of destruction [atomic bomb], these 20,000 people were eradicated almost
instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace left of them;” -American Chief Prosecutor Jackson at IMT

Re. the ten thousands of other circumstantial witnesses on file in the mentioned archives above, usually brought up subsequently as counter-argument
-interestingly/strangely though, in my experience a least, by persons who, turns out never actually investigated any of those in detail nor are familiar with official investigations done by others/official (mostly jewish) institutions and what the criterias are for being included in those archives?-

In that regard and all fairness maybe also to take into consideration:

Examples of official quotes (hopefully fair to context) of conclusion from mentioned investigations:

1a) Quote from largest official testimony collection done immediately after the war by elected representative of the Jewish Displaced Persons in the American zone of occupation in Germany- Samuel Gringauz:

"This is the reason why most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies."
Jewish Social Studies
Vol. 12, No. 1 (Jan., 1950), pp. 65-72.

1b) Quote from director of the Jerusalem Holocaust Museum Yad Vashem archives Shmuel Krakowski. Regarding survivor-witnesses:
"Many"..."were never in the places were they claim to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second-hand information given them by friends or passing strangers".
Front page article of Jerusalem Post newspaper, August 17, 1986.

(If of interest and to illustrate the main problem as above mentioned in example:

Leading Austrian Social Democrat, Dr. Benedikt Kautsky -- himself a Jew -- who spent the years from 1938 to 1945 in concentration camps, three of these in Auschwitz:
"I was in the big concentration camps in Germany. I must truthfully state that in no camp have I ever seen anything that might have resembled gas chambers.. (But) would like to include here a short description of the gas chambers which I have, it is true, not seen myself, but which was described by me by so many different parties in a credible fashion that I am not afraid to render the description here."
-Quotation entered by the Crown during Zuendel vs Crown trial 1988, cross-examination of Thies Christoffersen.)

2.) Studies by experts on the plus and minus aspects of human memory and False-Memory-Syndrome.
F.ex. Elisabeth Loftus (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229512216_False_Memory)

In this context -and the forementioned character of the post war german/israeli trials- maybe especially interesting, Dr. Loftus (jewish in heritage herself) was paradoxically asked to testify in the world famous "Ivan the terrible/ Treblinka" trial of 1987 (which she refused, as she self explains below):
In her own words (WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE by Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991):

"On the outside, assessing the facts, taking notes, asking detailed questions, was Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, professor at the University of Washington and expert witness in hundreds of court cases. She wanted to say, "Yes, of course I'll take the case." The Israeli police interrogation practices were, indeed, questionable, and the prosecution was depending on memories that were thirty-five years old. If these memories were to be believed, and John Demjanjuk was found guilty, he would be sentenced to death. It was a case that cried out for expert testimony." (p. 221)

The file should have convinced me. A case that relied on thirty-five-year-old memories should have been enough by itself. Add to those decaying memories the fact that the witnesses knew before they looked at the photographs that the police had a suspect, and they were even given the suspect's first and last name - Ivan Demjanjuk. Add to that scenario the fact that the Israeli investigators asked the witnesses if they could identify John Demjanjuk, a clearly prejudicial and leading question. Add to that the fact that the witnesses almost certainly talked about their identification afterward, possibly contaminating subsequent identifications. Add to that the repeated showing of John Demjanjuk's photograph so that with each exposure, his face became more and more familiar and the witnesses became more and more confident and convincing.

Then factor into all of the above the intensely emotional nature of this particular case, for the man these people were identifying was more than a tool of the Nazis, more, even, than the dreaded Ivan who ran the diesel engines and tortured and mutilated prisoners. This man, if he was Ivan the Terrible, was personally responsible for murdering their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, children.

Dr. Loftus would have stopped with the file. She would have added up all the factors, assessed the problems, calculated the numerous possibilities for error and responded, "Yes, of course, I'll testify about the general workings of memory, and discuss how and why it can fail."

But Beth Fishman [Loftus' maiden name] couldn't stop with the file." (p.224)

"If I take the case," I explained, having talked this out with myself hundreds of times, "I would turn my back on my Jewish heritage. If I don't take the case, I would turn my back on everything I've worked for in the last fifteen years. To be true to my work, I must judge the case as I have judged every case before it. If there are problems with the eyewitness identifications I must testify. It's the consistent thing to do." p. 232

(As examples of eyewitnesses at that trial:)
Loftus witnessed "Eyewitness" Gustave Boraks identify Demjanjuk, but then have trouble remembering the name of his own child. Boraks, who had come to Israel from Florida, was asked if he could remember how he had made the journey. He told the stunned audience that he had come "by train" (p. 230).

From the opposit side of the picture:

specifically regarding the mentioned "second hand information" and "hearsay" infiltrating testimonies, another unfortunate muddying aspect to the whole picture comes in, from the opposit side of the whole picture, which is the apparently willfull and systematic spreading of black propaganda rumours about atrocities from both

1. the Underground (polish/communist and other) Resistance Movement within the camps
(see f.ex. Auschwitz prisoner Bruno Baum, member- together with Hermann Langbein-of leadership
council of the Auschwitz camp partisans, on July 31, 1945, in the German newspaper Deutsche Volkszeitung:
“All the propaganda that now began to circulate about Auschwitz in foreign countries originated with us, assisted by our Polish comrades.”= and
2. Britains Political Warfare Executive (PWE) -Department`s official Black Propaganda Program (former MI6 Section "D"/ Special Operation Executive SOE) using the systematic distribution of officially called "sibs" (sibilare-whispers) through all available media and undercover enemy territory agents about f.ex. Germans gassing their own and other soldiers/civilians (first in trains, then buildings..), making prime steaks of russian prisoners and all un-and imaginable atrocity narratives else, from at least 41 onward in an officially stated effort to "affect enemy morale".

If interested, a few examples:
(Explanation "U.P."= Underground Propaganda Committee, chaired by David Bowes-Lyon, brother of the then Queen.)
(File numbers refer to official british archives.)

a)"The Germans are rounding up healthy Russian prisoners and transferring them in batches of a thousand at a time to a prison camp near Kiev. It may be a coincidence that cans of something called ‘Russian beef’ are already being exported from a factory near Kiev to the most hard hit parts in the Ruhr.”
Sib R/724, Minutes of U.P. Committee Meeting, 14th November 1941, FO 898/6937

b)“The Germans need every hospital they have got for their own wounded, so foreign workers who fall seriously sick are just sent to the gas-chamber.”
Sib R/773, Minutes of U.P. Committee Meeting, 21st November 1941, FO 898/69 approved by War Office Deputy Director of Operations, Col. John Sinclair (who became Chief of MI6 from 1953 to 1956) in note to David Bowes-Lyon.
See also:note by the JIC Secretary, Lt. Col. Stephen Shoosmith, headed ‘Rumours of a Military Nature Intended to Mystify and Mislead the Enemy’, CAB 81/105.

The overall campaign finally leading to:
c)"We have now arrived at a situation where it is virtually impossible to distinguish between ‘come-backs’ on certain of our rumour campaigns and genuine reports from enemy and occupied territory.."
SOE Executive Committee, Progress Report of SOE for week ending 17.12.41, HS 8/21941.

As final examples regarding witnesses/testimony-
The verdict/conclusion at Nuremberg IMT was:

Sir Hartley Shawcross, chief British prosecutor at the main Nuremberg trial, closing address on July 26, 1946 :
“Murder [was] conducted like some mass production industry in the gas chambers and the ovens” of Buchenwald, Dachau, Oranienburg and several other camps in Germany.
-Claim resting mainly on witness testimony(see f.ex Dr.F.Blaha at IMT)-
All these gas-chambers/mass-extermination charges seem to have been dropped since though, as "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal later (first in 1975, then 1993) re-affirmed: (f.ex. Stars and Stripes, issue sunday jan.24.1993) "there were no extermination camps on german soil"..?

--So, again, in my experience, all these specific data points mean what they mean, in their specific circumstances, no more, no less, jumping to hasty conclusions in any direction not justified at this point.
Preliminary perhaps justifiable part-conclusion though could be: careful cross-investigation of any claims coming from those "thousands of witnesses", one by one, before accepting anything on pure face-value?
A Holohoaxers Journey Part 4 E) (Final part, promise..)

And to come full circle here as well, ALL the mentioned above has still exclusively only dealt with ONE side of the picture of testimonies/witnesses and in even more fuller circle back to the question whether the Holocaust mainstream narrative is one solid by/because of what it presents or what it leaves/filters out-

As mentioned the purely statistical aspect being that approx. 99,5% of First Hand Experiencers on the prosecution side never claimed having witnessed any Extermination Activity (and even far greater percentage on the defendant side of course fwiw).
The question whether the absence of their claims proofs anything or not (or something in between) being not my point here, but the far more fascinating (imho) question:

What DID they say and where are those purely statistically vastly outnumbering other side`s reports?
And the necessarily following one if their absence in presentation is proof for them not existing or because of them being censored out and what -if the latter- that may say about the ones "investigating" the topic?

Which was actually my -naive- start to it all, only reason perhaps for me to finally cross the crazy-line threshold and take a look at the revisionists works being:
-firstly learning that the whole movement was actually started by a person least expected of all to-
french communist/resistance-partisan and concentration camp (Buchenwald/Dora)"survivor", severly mistreated by his captors, as everyone knows, Professor Paul Rassinier.
-secondly to then watch the subsequent treatment of him (and others speaking out) by the public and media/academia.

So, if off (probably lost last reader long ago anways..)-chance interested-
in all fairness and to maybe just to get a feel for the other side as well,for whatever it is worth :
-few quotes from contemporary First Hand Witnesses (of course exactly as all the above to be verified and scrutinized independantly before having any real evidentiary value):

Professor Paul Rassinier:

-"Then one day I realized that a false picture of the German camps had been created and that the problem of the concentration camps was a universal one, not just one that could be disposed of by placing it on the doorstep of the National Socialists. The deportees, many of whom were Communists, had been largely responsible for leading international political thinking to such an erroneous conclusion. I suddenly felt that by remaining silent I was an accomplice to a dangerous influence."
(The Holocaust Story and the Lie of Ulysses, Institute for Historical Review, Costa Mesa, Cal., 1978, p.38.)
-"With regard to gas chambers, the almost endless procession of false witnesses and of falsified documents to which I have invited the reader's attention during this long study, proves, nevertheless, only one thing: never at any moment did the responsible authorities of the Third Reich intend to order, or in fact order, the extermination of the Jews in this or any other manner."
(Ibid., p.270)
"For fifteen years, every time that I heard of a witness anywhere, no matter where in the portion of Europe that was not occupied by the Soviets, who claimed to have himself been present at gas exterminations, I immediately went to him to get his testimony. And, each time the experience ended in the same way. With documentation in hand, I would ask him so many precise and detailed questions that soon it became apparent that he could not answer except by lying. Often his lies became so transparent, even to himself, that he ended his testimony by declaring that he had not seen it himself, but that one of his good friends, who had died in the camps and whose good faith he could not doubt, had told him about it. I covered thousands and thousands of kilometers throughout Europe in this way"
(Ibid., p.270)
"It is my intention to wring from public opinion the admission that, in the war of 1939-1945, Englishmen, Russians, Frenchmen and Americans committed crimes just as horrible and in just as great a number as those attributed to the Germans – whose real crimes are, however, very much open to dispute. I also wish to have it conceded that it is immoral to investigate merely German war criminals, especially when the criminal nature of their behavior has been exaggerated, as has indeed been the case. (letter to Mr. Mykon, may 8th 1965)

Thiess Christofferson (German Guard/overseer at Auschwitz):

"The Jews were intelligent and so far as I got to know them in Auschwitz, quite nice too. In the summer my mother came for a visit and stayed several days. Of course, a fat friendship developed between her and Olga (his polish house-maid). One evening my mother asked about the crematorium where corpses were supposed to be burned. I knew nothing about this, so I asked Olga. She could not tell me anything definite either. She did intimate, however, that around Bielitz there always was what seemed to be a reflection against the sky, as if from a fire.

So I went in the direction of Bielitz and there found a mining camp in which some inmates also worked. I travelled around the entire camp and examined all fire grates and all smoke stacks, but found nothing. I asked my colleagues; the answer … a shrug of the shoulder and “don’t pay any attention to those rumors.” Actually, there was a crematorium in Auschwitz, I was told, for there were 20,000 people there and any city of that size has a crematorium. Of course people died here as they did elsewhere, but not only inmates at the camp. The wife of one of our supervisors had also died here. As far as I was concerned, that was enough of an answer.

During all the time I was in Auschwitz I never in the least observed anything that even indicated mass killings in gas chambers. Also the story of a smell of burned flesh that allegedly hovered over the camp at times was an infamous lie. In the vicinity of the main camp there was a smithy where horses’ hooves were shod. The burning of the horses’ hooves when fitting them with shoes naturally caused an unpleasant smell. Incidentally, the man who was in charge of this particular smithy at the time, now lives in a neighboring village.

As a matter of fact, camp regulations became more generous all the time. In the main camp there was now a brothel for the men. Love and sex, is something human after all, and was not withheld from those who were interned. Of course there were also love relationships among the inmates.
The fact that such houses did exist for the inmates in Auschwitz was completely ignored in all post-war reports.
An admission to such a brothel was a kind of reward for good behaviour.(..)

Good old Olga, sometimes I wonder what became of her. She didn’t want to return to a Communist Poland — almost none of the inmates wanted that, not even the Jews. Many of them even prayed for a German victory. From a colleague, whom I visited recently, I learned that quite a number of them are in the U.S. He still corresponds with some. Some were also willing to testify on behalf of SS Officers at their trials but were denied this privilege by Allied and especially by West German authorities. These reports were publicized by the “right wing” press at the time.

There were no secrets in Auschwitz. In September 1944 a Commission of the Red Cross came to inspect the camp, but it was more interested in the camp at Birkenau.

We also had a great many inspections at Raisko, but the people who came were largely interested in plant cultivation. I was often involved in these tours."
(T.Christoffersen, "Die Auschwitz Luege", page 18/19)

Attorney Dr Friedrich Grimm:

Describes an accidental meeting a short while after the end of WWII with a person who, during the course of the conversa-
tion, revealed himself as an agent of an Allied propaganda agency.
Dr. Grimm remarked that now, after the end of hostilities, it was time to stop this propaganda and permit peaceful co-existence between the people of the world based on the truth. The answer of the Allied secret agent to this understandable opinion, according to Dr. Grimm, was: “No, atrocity propaganda is how we won the total war. [...] And we are only getting started! We will intensify it, until the last spark of sympathy for the Germans has been eradicated and the German people themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know who they are and what they are doing! "
(Book by Dr.F. Grimm, pulled from publication in 1998 because of the quote, re-cited in: G. Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust, 906)

As said, fwiw, -as with all the other testimonies.
Most interesting to me being not even their testimonies, but their treatment after giving it (easily retracable online) , perhaps my former naive question why there arent more of them publicly available thus having answered itself..

And ALL this is of course just my subjective experience/wondering.
Would be interesting to learn what others have investigated/ found out.
So, sorry for the huge data-dump, to end:

Specifically "Holohoaxer...(same ol stuff etc)"- label/term

-Set aside that is not really an existing one-
May one ask why do you employ that and what ou exactly mean by it?

F.ex. the below following here then would fall under that label, meaning H`aaretz and Wikipedia are "Holohoaxers" in your terminology?