pjbuk

Weird is good, it's way better than bad....

Wassup? And why would you damn a fictional character, hmmmm?

Hey guys this is my life partner Jason who has uploaded his tunes to betarecords. The more clicks he gets, the higher up the charts he goes. Lend your support will ya to both him and my great friend Andy... Fine musicians both. http://www.betarecords.com/jay.b http://www.betarecords.com/andy.thomas Your opinions on the tunes would also be greatly appreciated. That is also a great site for any budding musos out there who wish to put their tunes on the web...

Are you aware of any historical documents or articles about this on the web? I've never heard of it myself.

An Auschwitz Eyewitness Account By Thies Christophersen 3-7-6 My booklet, The Auschwitz Lie, has become an under-the-counter bestseller. It has appeared in French, Spanish, Dutch, Danish and even Hungarian, as well as in several English language editions. Actually, there's nothing very remarkable about The Auschwitz Lie except that it was written by someone who was in Auschwitz and~who recorded his experiences and recollections. People generally prefer to read sensational reports, and my booklet is certainly not that. In the spirit of Martin Luther, I try to speak positively and influence things for the best. But I was accused of "popular incitement" (Volksverhetzung) for doing that. I spent a year in prison, even though the charge of popular incitement was eventually dropped. However, the charges of "contempt against the state" and defamation of the Jews, who now enjoy special protection in this regard, were not dropped. I was also accused of defaming the memory of the dead. In this regard, the son of Count Schenk von Stauffenberg appeared as a co-plaintiff against me because I had called his father a traitor. Well, I wouldn't like it either if my own father had been insulted, and so I wasn't offended when Stauffenberg junior sought to rehabilitate his father's reputation. All the same, there wasn't any need for a criminal indictment. If he had sent me a letter justifying his father's actions, I certainly would have published the complete text of it in my magazine. Of course, I would also have commented on it, as I always do with critical letters from readers. I'd like to describe my experiences and observations since the publication of my first-person report about Auschwitz. When I wrote my report, I was criticized on the grounds that, although I was in the camp and saw nothing of mass gassings, that fact did not necessarily mean that there were none. All the same, I can say with certainty that there were no mass gassings at Auschwitz. I don't write under a pen name. I even gave my address and telephone number. I have received thousands of letters and calls. Many of those who contacted me can confirm my statements, but are afraid to do so publicly. Some of those are SS men who were brutally mistreated and even tortured in Allied captivity. I also immediately contacted those who claimed to know more about mass gassings. My experiences were precisely the same as those of French professor Paul Rassinier. I have not found any eyewitnesses. Instead, people would tell me that they knew someone who knew someone else, who talked about it. In most cases the alleged eyewitnesses had died. Other supposed eyewitnesses would quickly begin to stammer and stutter when I asked a few precise questions. Even Simon Wiesenthal had to finally admit before a Frankfurt district court that he was actually never in Auschwitz. All of the reports I have heard about are contradictory. Everyone seemed to tell a different story about the gas chambers. They couldn't even agree about where they were supposed to have been located.,This is also true of the so-called scholarly literature, which is full of contradictions. I want to try to explain how such stories get started. When I tell fairy tales to my grandchildren, I often speak as if I am there in the story myself, so that the children will believe them. Many people also have a tendency to embellish what they say. Some enjoy getting others to believe their false tales. And then there are the so-called "bull stories" (Latrinenparolen). Every veteran knows about these. Those interned in prison camps particularly like to invent and spread such stories. So, I have an explanation for how the story got started that corpses were burned in open fires at Auschwitz. There were also "bull stories" at Auschwitz. My maid, Olga, once told my mother, who was visiting me at Auschwitz, about a fire in which people were being burned. I asked Olga about that. She didn't know anything for sure, but she said that a fire could always be seen in the direction of Bielitz. I drove in that direction but found only a large industrial plant where inmates were also working. I looked over the entire camp and inspected all the fires and smoking chimneys. But I didn't find anything suspicious. I asked my colleagues, but they answered merely by shrugging their shoulders and saying that I shouldn't believe "bull stories." There was indeed a crematory at Auschwitz. After all, 200,000 people lived there and every city has a crematory. Of course, people died there as well - and not just inmates. The wife of SS Lt. Col. Caesar, for example, died there of typhus. I was satisfied with those answers at the time. Today, I know much more about this matter. At first, those who died at Auschwitz were buried, but because of the high ground water level (one meter) in this area between the Vistula and Sola rivers, that practice couldn't be continued. A labor team headed by SS Staff Sergeant Moll (who had been in charge of the agricultural nursery at Raisko) was assigned to dig up the buried corpses and burn them. This was done on an open fire. The most unbelievable stories were told about this procedure. West German television even broadcast a film of this which was supposedly made in secret by an SS man. There's another factor which has played a role in all this. The defense attorneys for the so-called German war criminals were not entirely blameless. Every defense attorney wants freedom for his client and, as a result, the attorneys often argued that persons who were already dead were guilty of the alleged crimes. SS Sergeant Moll was killed in action in the final days of the war. During this period I also received a report from the brother-inlaw of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf H

http://www.zen13564.zen.co.uk/filesoffered/irving.mp3 David Irving interviewed this morning from jail on BBC Radio4 with a response from Professor Richard Evans, a Historian with opposing views.

In Defense of Free Thought By Robert Scheer AlterNet February 24, 2006 Sentencing a Holocaust denier to prison -- and the lack of protests in response -- should raise alarms among everyone who values free speech. I think as I please And this gives me pleasure. My conscience decrees, This right I must treasure. My thoughts will not cater To duke or dictator, No man can deny - Die gedanken sind frei. (Sixteenth-century German peasant song revived as a protest anthem against the Nazi regime) The news on Monday that an Austrian court has sentenced crackpot British historian David Irving to three years' imprisonment for having denied the Holocaust seventeen years ago should have alarmed free speech advocates -- particularly at a time when Muslim fundamentalists are being lectured as to the freedom of expression that should be afforded cartoonists. In the event, however, a lack of noticeable outcry has exposed a longstanding double standard in the West about who is entitled to free speech and why. To be sure, Nazi propaganda is an extremely sensitive issue in Hitler's birth country, which for the most part endorsed the madman's vision of the Third Reich. But the repression of the free marketplace of ideas is an endorsement of tyranny rather than its repudiation. And it is not just Austria, and Germany itself, that have banned the views of Holocaust deniers: Eight other European states have joined in. Muslim fundamentalists outraged by the cartoons that have appeared widely in the European media thus have the right to question the conflicting standards of what is considered worthy of censorship. The muted response of the Western media to the Irving decision is difficult to fathom. Not much has been reported on this case and what has appeared often assumes that this severe limit to free speech is obviously justified. For example, a BBC report over the weekend concluded with this ominous paragraph: "In a letter to the BBC from his prison cell, Mr. Irving said some of his views on the gas chambers had changed -- but he also expressed opinions which would be challenged by mainstream historians." Since when has it been accepted as a crime to challenge mainstream historians, even when, as in this case, the challenge is without foundation? Should a deeply wrongheaded view, even one motivated by vile malice as Irving's critics claim motivates him, lead to incarceration? The case made for criminalizing speech in the West is usually based on the concept that it is not OK to yell fire in a crowded theater -- or incite violence. The argument for jailing Irving is that denying the Holocaust is equivalent to stoking the fires of anti-Semitic violence. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," stated the head of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust, by way of defending the Austrian verdict. But by that standard, the artists who drew the cartoons depicting Muhammad should also be arrested, as well as their editors and publishers. Critics of the Danish newspaper that commissioned the Muhammad cartoons claim that its editorial slant is anti-Muslim and that they were attempting a deliberate provocation. So should the paper's editors be prosecuted? After all, people have died protesting these inflammatory comics. Will Austria and the other nations that ban anti-Semitic books now ban expressions judged by Muslims to be unacceptably hostile to their religion? Unfortunately, they may do just that out of political opportunism, given the rioting and trade boycotts that followed the publication of those cartoons. But they would once again be wrong. Speech that is not felt by some powerful group to be loathsome is hardly in need of protection. The value of an absolutist opposition to the censorship of speech, as enshrined in the US Constitution's First Amendment, is that it holds out the prospect that the right to speak will be honored even when the content of those utterances is not. What is disturbing in both the Irving and Muhammad cartoon situations is the stuttering hesitancy of many who claim to be committed to free speech to speak out in opposition to those -- be they Muslim clerics or Austrian judges -- who seek to limit the free expression of individuals expressing views they detest. In both instances, the world has been presented with a teaching moment, in which the argument for free thought -- that die gedanken sind frei ("thoughts are free") that the Nazis and every other absolutist dictatorship have excelled in crushing -- was not advanced by those who know better. As a result, a world sorely in need of a crash course in the efficacy of free debate received nothing of the sort. Instead, the lesson has been that the suppression of ideas is valid, as long as the suppressors are convinced that they are in the right. Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/32693/

Part 2: Student Documentary on 9-11 Loose Change is a documentary made by three SUNY Oneonta Students. Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas focusing on what they call a mystery surrounding the September Eleventh Attacks. Thursday Night, we showed you Loose Change's claim that the World Trade Center collapse was due to a controlled demolition, and supported that theory with visual evidence and witness testimony from the film. But now, we focus on the Pentagon attack. The documentary questions how a 155 feet long Boeing 757 aircraft with a 124 ft wingspan can crash into a building leaving only a 16 foot hole and at the same time, vaporize on impact? The film states the official explanation is the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane. However, Dylan Avery, the writer and director of Loose Change says,

Gas Chambers What about denying the existence of extermination "gas chambers"? Here too, Mayer makes a startling statement (on page 362 of his book): "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." While Mayer believes that such chambers did exist at Auschwitz, he points out that most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity. H

What is Holocaust Denial? In recent years, more and more attention has been devoted to the supposed danger of "Holocaust denial." Politicians, newspapers and television warn about the growing influence of those who reject the Holocaust story that some six million European Jews were systematically exterminated during the Second World War, most of them in gas chambers. In several countries, including Israel, France, Germany and Austria, "Holocaust denial" is against the law, and "deniers" have been punished with stiff fines and prison sentences. Some frantic Jewish community leaders are calling for similar government measures in North America against so-called "deniers." In Canada, David Matas, Senior Counsel for the "League for Human Rights" of the Zionist B'nai B'rith organization, says: [1] The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews, including two million children. Holocaust denial is a second murder of those same six million. First their lives were extinguished; then their deaths. A person who denies the Holocaust becomes part of the crime of the Holocaust itself. Often overlooked in this controversy is the crucial question: Just what constitutes "Holocaust denial"? Six Million? Should someone be considered a "Holocaust denier" because he does not believe -- as Matas and others insist -- that six million Jews were killed during World War II? This figure was cited by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. It found that "the policy pursued [by the German government] resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions." [2] Yet if that is so, then several of the most prominent Holocaust historians could be regarded as "deniers." Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews, does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, author of The Final Solution, likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information. Human Soap? Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he says that the Nazis didn't use Jewish fat to make soap? After examining all the evidence (including an actual bar of soap supplied by the Soviets), the Nuremberg Tribunal declared in its Judgment that "in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap." [3] In 1990, though, Israel's official "Yad Vashem" Holocaust memorial agency "rewrote history" by admitting that the soap story was not true. "Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?," said Yad Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski. [4] Wannsee Conference? Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he does not accept that the January 1942 "Wannsee conference" of German bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass murder of Europe's Jews? If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong -- and a "Holocaust denier" -- because he recently declared: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at." In Bauer's opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but "hardly a conference" and "little of what was said there was executed in detail." [5] Extermination Policy? Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe's Jews? There was a time when the answer would have been yes. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study, The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of Europe's Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and the second shortly thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised, three-volume edition of his book published in 1985. [6] As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has noted: [7] In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the "Final Solution" have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: "Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended." In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given. A lack of hard evidence for an extermination order by Hitler has contributed to a controversy that divides Holocaust historians into "intentionalists" and "functionalists." The former contend that there was a premeditated extermination policy ordered by Hitler, while the latter hold that Germany's wartime "final solution" Jewish policy evolved at lower levels in response to circumstances. But the crucial point here is this: notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German documents after the war, no one can point to documentary evidence of a wartime extermination order, plan or program. This was admitted by Professor Hilberg during his testimony in the 1985 trial in Toronto of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Z

It's worth looking at this page.... http://www.honestmediatoday.com/ever_diminishing_holocaust.htm Especially the images of Red Cross documents detailing the death tolls after the war, these are well known on the net but always seem to be dismissed, even though they have been repeatedley verified by Red Cross officials. They tell a very different story on the numbers and were the official documents from after the war. Scroll down the page to see them.

Evidence please. Links to details and documents, or do you expect people to take your word over ALL the contrary evidence posted so far in this thread?

And a few more interesting articles on the subject.... Six reasons why the gas chamber story is a lie How the British Obtained The Confessions Of Rudolf H

I'm not sure how to link images here so I'll link a thread or two at Plaza with info on this subject.... The Elusive 'Six Million' The UN Decides On A Universal Ban On Revisionism