NDE Q & A

There's a new interview with Chris Carter on the Subversive Thinking blog. 

Chris's book on NDEs comes out soon, and can be pre-ordered from Amazon. 

Comments

[Ulysses]

In the Links Of Interest section at the end of the page there is also a link to Physicist Henry Stapp's recent paper "Compatibility of contemporary physical theory with personal survival:
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/Compatibility.pdf
Very interesting!

[Larry]

In the interview, Chris Carter (who is great btw) comments:

"I would recommend physicist Nick Herbert’s very entertaining book Elemental Mind. It’s a great introduction to the implications of the new physics for the mind/body problem"

If we are going to call out Wu for 9-11 woowoo we should call out Herbert for something much worse...Herbert needs to be made persona non grata among us in light of the fact that Herbert is a Holocaust Revisionist, yes really. See what he had to say during the whole David Irving trial affair in the UK a couple of years back, when he came out NOT in favour of Irving's free speech (something I support) but explicitly in support of Irving's views on the Holocaust (ie his Revisionist views) as factually and historically accurate. In other words, Herbert is a Holocaust Revisionist. Amazingly enough the extreme skeptic camp ie the CSI types, have never even bothered to bring this up and use it against the 'psi believers' camp, despite the fact that Herbert is a big fish, a well-known high-energy physicist and author who is pro-psi - that's because they are so bloody lazy they can't even do their homework. So I put it out there, and if JREF guys are reading this, by all means make a big fuss of this (I wish you would). It is certainly warranted.

Jack Sarfatti himself, a Jewish physicist, who is frankly a bit too wacky for my tastes re his own brand of exotic physics, called Herbert "the David Irving of physics" yonks ago and rightly so. So this is old news. Shame on you Herbert - shows you how banal and mainstream even the most viscious anti-Semitism is, that nobody appears to have noticed this nor made a big deal about it.

Getting back to Carter, I'm curious what he has to say against the super-psi hypothesis in favour of survival (since I'm partial to the former), looking forward to his book..

[Michael Prescott]

"Herbert is a Holocaust Revisionist, yes really."

I was totally unaware of this until now, but a little Googling turned up a long essay by Herbert in defense of David Irving, which can be read here:

tiny.cc/qq1kq

"he came out NOT in favour of Irving's free speech (something I support) but explicitly in support of Irving's views on the Holocaust"

I would say he came out in favor of both. Free speech is clearly important to him, and he criticizes the laws against Holocaust revisionism as dangerous to free inquiry. But he also seems to think Irving is a brilliant historian with a clear grasp of the facts.

Disappointing. I read one of Herbert's books on physics and found it quite informative. Hard to take him quite so seriously now.

[michael duggan]

I have had the same disappointed feelings towards other esteemed psi researchers who have revealed beliefs in stupidity.

For example Garret Moddel (The former president of the Society for Scientific exploration and head of a psi research program at Denver) for his sympathy to HIV denialism.

Lynne McTaggart (Theintentionexperiment.com)
for her support of Andrew Wakefield the guy who "discovered" a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

I could go on. I guess even highly competent people can believe nonsense. Why is this? Maybe it fulfils an emotional need or it helps to appear open minded to bizarre claims (in the case of Moddel).

Conan Doyle belived the faked photgraphic evidence purporting to show fairies in the English village of Cottingly.

However, despite these deficiencies ALL of the above have made significant and real contributions, for example Moddel's research provides good evidence for associative remote viewing for certain applications. So I don't get too disheartened when somebody I looked up to reveals a penchant to believe a bit of nonsense.
Maybe we all have these deficiencies?

[Bruce Siegel]

"So I don't get too disheartened when somebody I looked up to reveals a penchant to believe a bit of nonsense."

I often feel that sort of disappointment, Michael. But then I remind myself that people I care about and respect probably think the same about me! Helps me to keep an open mind and remember that the universe may not be as amenable to right/wrong yes/no answers as we like to think.

[rick49]

Please add the name of David Ray Griffin to the list of "brilliant men whose work we admire but cant believe that they buy into (name conspiracy theory, debunker, or believer in thoroughly discredit beliefs). Griffin is an interesting philosopher and Process Theologian based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead that takes the position that consciousness is fundamental in the universe and that the seed of consciousness is fundamental in our Cosmological rule set and begins to manifest in the universe in inanimate matter and is expressed with more complexity as matter evolves and moves toward sentient life .This is Whitehead's attempt to solve the mind/body dualism inherent in Cartesian philosophy. Very sophisticated stuff and yet he's thrown his fine reputation away as a leader in the 911 conspiracy movement

[Erich]

hmmmmm.....I've just been reading - for the first time - Herbert's perspectives on the holocaust, hate crime legislation and free speech.

I don't see where anything Herbert has said merits black balling the guy (I am generally not in favor black balling anyone for presenting a reasoned argument; even if where it points offends me in some way).

Herbert is not denying the Holocaust occurred. In fact, he seems to readily accept that jews and others were placed in concentration camps where they died of hunger, disease, exposure, shooting, beatings, medical experiments, being buried alive, etc.

He is simply questioning the acceptance that the majority of those killed in it were killed by poison gas in gas chambers. He appears to make some well reasoned arguments; though, admittedly, I am not well versed on the subject and am not familiar with the viability of counter arguments.

Why must there always be these taboo subjects?

[michael duggan]

Very interesting. Maybem just maybe, an openness to the idea of non-local consciousness / mind as fundamental (where the evidence from a plethora of sources is stacking up quite nicely) also lends itself to a susceptibilty to believe a bit of wacky stuff (HIV denialism, 9-11 conspiracy nonsense, Holocaust denialism, etc, etc). Just a thought.

[Erich]

maybe, Michael D, because people that have become open to the idea of non-local consciousness / mind as fundamental have had their intelligence/mind expanded enough to realize that most everything we believe/hold as true is merely what we have been told is such by a) mindless drones repeating what they have been told by others who, in turn, were repeating what they were told b) manipulative self-serving humans c) well meaning, but erroneous sources.

I mean what do you know and how do you it know it? Seriously, take an inventory and think it over.

Why is questioning what we have been told so wacky?

[Tharpa]

What do I know?

I know that I don't know. I know that I exist by the very fact that there is the knowing that I don't know that I exist.

You know? I mean like when you're driving across the Great Plains, and ahead in the distance you see the thunderheads piling skyward, and then the hail hits you like hell frozen over and you wonder if the winds and the hail might ever end in the world and lightning too.

And then through the maelstrom the westward sun reddens the retreating storm, and you look way off in the clearing sky, a cloud-top gaze, and you can feel the distance like clear water, present and heavy with joy.

So, that's as knowing as I can get- that feeling of distance in a clear sky as it radiates clouds or stars. Pure presence is the stainless crystal vase pouring into,and out of, our souls.

[michael duggan]

Erich,

The evidence for non-local consciousness is immense and the scienitifc climate is becoming more hospitable to such a paradigm shift (even if most scientists don't realise it yet!). For example, biological quantum entanglement was viewed with deep skepticism (quantum entanglement is thought to be necessary for certain classes of psi functioning), now it has been demonstrated to occur. By wacky beliefs, I mean those controversial areas that have NO substance whatsoever, and in fact are blatently nonsensical, for example 9-11 conspiracy whack. I'm sorry if I appear closed minded on this subject, but I'm with Richard Dawkins here "By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."

[Art]

Yesterday I ordered Dr. Pimm Van Lommel's new book, Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience from Amazon.com. Van Lommel is a proponent of non-local consciousness. I'm really looking forward to reading his book when it arrives.

[Erich]

I hear you, Tharpa.

Michael D., Sure, but where that line - where the brain starts dropping out - is drawn is purely subjective.

I'm just saying that no topic should be forbidden to honest discussion. Let the chips fall where they may; where the evidence places them.

For the record, I am convinced that the Nazis killed a lot of civilians, including millions of Jews.

That being said, out of curiousity I did some more reading on the topic of gas chambers in the camps and I found myself seeing even more evidence to support the idea that Herbert proposes. Systematic gassing may not have been the primary - or even a significant - method of murder used by the Nazis as per the standard taught history. Bullets, disease, exposure and starvation probably accounted for the vast majority of deaths of Jews.

Herbert is ok with this analysis. So what? Dead is dead and the down playing of the role of gas does nothing to diminish the barbarity of the Nazis.

Herbert seems a little too preocupied with goulish details for my taste, but should he be discredited in all (or any) area of research for his views on cause of death in Nazi concentration camps? I think not.

I think his defense of David Irving was limited to the gas chamber question.

[Larry]

I hope people here have the brains to realise that Erich is defending the views of Holocaust Revisionists (Nick Herbert and David Irving) on the gas chambers as credible, whilst trying to pretend at the same time that there is nothing revisionist about Herbert's views, and therefore Erich's who comes out in support of Herbert (and Irving) on this front.

I have noticed a lot of people like Erich out there, you see them commentating all over indymedia type sites, and their MO is this.. 'the Holocaust was terrible, plenty Jews died, there was disease blabla..BUT there is a lot in the 'official history' that makes no sense, appears exaggerated especially about the gas chambers, not that Jews weren't gassed BUT etc etc'
They try to soften the blow and the bigotry of their Holocaust Revisionism this way, it's typical new anti-Semitism.

Erich go back to reading your favourite book The Protocols of Zion.

Michael P - yes you are right, Herbert came out in support of Irving's free speech AND his Holocaust Revisionism. I didn't express myself well. I meant to write that the pertinent point about Herbert was that he came out in support of Irving's views on the Holocaust, and that the free speech issue was therefore a distraction from this. For the record, I was opposed to jailing Irving and believe that him and others like him should have their free speech protected.

[Hjortron]

People, please.

You seem to have it in your head that the official version almost always is the most accurate. For example the 9/11 stuff; if so many people are actually considering that it was an inside job, and the number is growing rapidly every day, then that is very good reason to think that it actually was in and of itself. Or at least that it is just as plausible as that it wasn't. After all, the people who change their minds often have had to make some research into it, and are not just blindly accepting of what they're told. Same with NDE stuff. You don't read the official newspaper and realize that the evidence for the paranormality of it is strong as shit.

I think it is important to give every subject its due time of investigation before forming a tangible opinion. Things I haven't personally looked in to, I simply have no strong opinion of, and at best an admittedly casual belief about it that is very open to change if I'd care enough to investigate the issue.

[Larry]

"For example the 9/11 stuff; if so many people are actually considering that it was an inside job, and the number is growing rapidly every day, then that is very good reason to think that it actually was in and of itself."

No it just proves that so many people are insane and gullible and have a strong tendency to embrace political paranoia, conspiracy thinking and fascism. According to such logic I could write: more and more people around the world are sympathetic to the jihad, from Algeria to Pakistan, this of itself is reason to think that there is some truth to Islamic radicalism. Or likewise in the 1930s more and more people in Germany and Austria came to believe that the Nazi party was the answer to their problems, so therefore maybe the Nazis were right after all, ditto the same rules of 'logic' for Stalin and his popularity among certain segments of the world's population etc etc.

[Larry]

The thing about Nick Herbert is if you go to the frontpage of his website, and check his list of links one of them is to David Irving's website where Herbert writes "Great Satan or Truth-seeking Maverick? Decide for yourself."

Now that should raise a big red flag and in fact that is what got me to google Irving holocaust and Nick Herbert and see what I got, when I first visited Herbert's website yonks ago and saw the weblinks, and hey presto my suspicions were confirmed. It took five minutes. This isn't difficult detective work - Poirot and Sherlock Holmes level of detective work it ain't.

Herbert was very recently at the Esalen Institute and took part in some kind of workshop/discussion with Jeff Krippal, a well known theology prof at Rice U. So I assume Esalen and Krippal don't know about Herbert's Holocaust Revisionism (which any half awake person would discover for themselves inside five minutes if they even bothered going to the homepage of his website and use their noggin upon noticing what I just point out above - his weblink to David Irving) or maybe Esalen and associated characters don't think any of this matters at all - why would Holocaust Revisionism discredit any person's opinions on higher truths, ethics, compassion, mysticism and associated? Yes I am being sarcastic.

Anybody want to query Esalen on this front? I am sure there are several Jewish folk involved with Esalen who might be a tad curious in this regard...

Unfuckingbelievable. No on second thoughts - all too believable.

[Hjortron]

Larry,

"No it just proves that so many people are insane and gullible and have a strong tendency to embrace political paranoia, conspiracy thinking and fascism."

You don't look at this objectively. Try to remove your bias where you think you already know that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

To reverse your thinking, one can easily claim "That the official story is believed just proves that so many people are insane and gullible and have a strong tendency to embrace political naivety, mainstream media brainwashing and fascism."

So you really have to try to understand where everyone in every debate is coming from. I mean, there are SO many questions regarding the official account of 9/11 that it's scary. Just look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlj1mVD2-HM

"According to such logic I could write: more and more people around the world are sympathetic to the jihad, from Algeria to Pakistan, this of itself is reason to think that there is some truth to Islamic radicalism."

Well, pick your playing cards. Is the numbers of believers in something relevant to how much we should consider the possibility that said claim is true? If it is, then the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job is growing daily. If it's not, then don't look down on non-mainstream media ideas just because general political correctness doesn't agree with them.

[michael duggan]

Larry, agreed. Unfuckingbelievable. And very depressing.

[Erich]

I don't get it. Larry, in his self appointed position as cheif of thought police, merely throws out the term "holocaust revisionism" (note; no addressing of the material substance) and it is supposed to be an instantaneous death ray like discussion killer.

What do you know about the holocaust and how do you know it?

Why is this cow so sacred that the official version can't even be questioned in the most ultimately meaningless detail (i.e. killed by gas or killed by other means)?

I think that Herbert likes goring sacred cows as a matter of principle. Someone has to do it.

[Michael Prescott]

Here are some quotes from David Irving:

"It [the Holocaust] is something like a religion.... The Intellectual Adventure is that we are reversing this entire trend within the space of one generation -- that in a few years time no one will believe this particular legend anymore. They will say, as I do, that atrocities were committed. Yes, hundreds of thousands of people were killed, but there were no factories of death. All that is a blood libel against the German people....

"They are going to wheel out all the so-called eyewitnesses. One in particular, Mrs. Altman, I've clashed with once or twice... We're going to meet because she has that tattoo. I am going to say,'You have that tattoo, we all have the utmost sympathy for you. But how much money have you made on it! In the last 45 years! Can I estimate! Quarter of a million! Half million! Certainly not less. That's how much you've made from the German taxpayers and the American taxpayers.' Ladies and gentlemen, you're paying $3 billion a year to the State of Israel. Compensation to people like Mrs. Altman. She'll say,'Why not, I suffered.' I'll say you didn't. You survived. By definition you didn't suffer. Not half as much as those who died.... They suffered. You didn't. You're the one making the money."

Speech in Portland, OR. September 18, 1996.

http://www.adl.org/holocaust/denier_quotes.asp

Irving testified under oath:

"I am very familiar with the Goebbels diaries... There is no explicit reference either implicit in these documents or legible in these documents to liquidation of Jews."

Here are excerpts from Goebbels' diaries:

"...the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war."

"The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor."

"Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands of them are liquidated."

In an Australian radio interview on November 8, 1996, Irving said, "I don't give speeches to neo-Nazis."

But jut two months earlier, on September 20, 1996, he was the featured speaker at a meeting of the National Alliance, called "the largest neo-Nazi group in America" by Klanwatch.

Asked how many Jews died in German camps, Irving has said, "... the real figures probably are about a million or less."

For more, see:

tiny.cc/m275q

Erich wrote, "Why is this cow so sacred that the official version can't even be questioned in the most ultimately meaningless detail (i.e. killed by gas or killed by other means)?"

The issue is not merely the means of execution. It is whether the Nazis set up "factories of death" at all. Irving says they did not. He admits that "probably ... about a million or less" died in the camps, but don't let this fool you. What he means is that most of them died of diseases like typhoid or of malnutrition - in other words, their deaths were unfortunate consequences of the hardship and deprivation they endured, but not the result of a deliberate policy of liquidation. This policy Irving specifically denies. In other words, he denies that genocide took place. He calls it "a blood libel against the German people."

So it is not a dispute over a meaningless technological detail. It's a dispute over whether or not the Nazis set out to exterminate the Jews, or merely ended up killing some as an unavoidable consequence of relocating them to internment camps.

There is a mass of evidence attesting to the Nazis' deliberate policy of genocide. Not only Goebbels' diaries, but the Wannsee Conference, testimony at the Nuremburg trials, recollections of eyewitnesses and camp guards and people who liberated the camps, etc. All this Irving must ignore or reinterpret. Whatever he's up to, it's not a quest for truth.

[Erich]

"There is a mass of evidence attesting to the Nazis' deliberate policy of genocide. Not only Goebbels' diaries, but the Wannsee Conference, testimony at the Nuremburg trials, recollections of eyewitnesses and camp guards and people who liberated the camps..."

The quality of the evidence you cite has been called into question.

http://www.codoh.info/newrevoices/nrillusion.html

interesting link displaying the basics of the revivionist case which addresses the "evidence" of planned genocide.

Irving is clearly a Nazi supporter if not full fledged member. And, yes, it does appear he is attempting to use revisionism as a stepping stone on the way to denial. He is, however, considered one of the premier academic authorities on the history of WW2. Let him make his case. If he's wrong, let the evidence prove it. Don't lock the man away in prison for presenting what should be the findings of scholarly research.

Herbert appears much less a Nazi sympathizer. Herbert seems genuinely concerned with the issue of whether or not gas chambers existed and were used for systematic mass murder. And, I have to tell you, after reading for several hours on the topic, I am becoming convinced that maybe the stories of the gas chambers were just that.

Again, I am quite certain that the Nazis deliberately murdered a heck of a lot of people. I do think the photographic evidence coming out of liberated concentration camps shows nothing of gas chambers, but plenty of death due to typhoid. Does this fact diminish the horror the Nazis created? Does it diminish their responsibility? I think not not; not one bit. And then there is real evidence - evidence that Herbert does not refute - that the Nazis shot something close to a million Jews. So they aren't off the hook for that regardless of how Irving tries to parlay the lack of good evidence for gas chambers.

Anyhow, I'm sure that no one here - myself included - wanted to go down the road of debating the holocaust. I was only trying to get a more general discussion concerning open mindedness.

[Breanainn]

I predict this thread is yay close to turning into "Rooting for JREF 2.0" and recommend ya'll run for the hills now if you value your sanity...

[Michael Prescott]

This article on the Auschwitz gas chambers seems credible to me:

tiny.cc/6sjbq

While some gas chambers were undoubtedly used for disinfecting prisoners, others were set up to give the appearance of disinfection chambers, while actually having dummy showerheads and no ventilation. Unsuspecting prisoners were herded inside and gassed.

In the final stages of the war, the SS apparently destroyed most of the homicidal gas chambers in an attempt to cover up the genocide and shield themselves from postwar prosecution. But some of the facilities do remain.

[Tharpa]

Well, in any case can we add that there's a very good chance indeed that many of those ultimate victims, however many they might be and however murdered, are even today involved in the debate no doubt.

Life goes on! It apparently has to try just about everything.

[Erich]

MP, I also do think that there were gas chambers used for homocidal purposes. I also believe that Nazis, fearing retribution post war, destroyed much evidence of these activities.

That being said, for the first time in my life I have actually considered this topic in a rational way and I am seeing where some of the eye witness testimony, including that from Nuremberg, could be called into question. One witness had Auschwitz systematically murdering 24,000 people a day with about 75% killed of those in the gas chambers. When you consider the logistics and mechanics of murdering all these people, per day, in the method described in testimony, and then cremating them in the few ovens that, most definitely were for disposing of bodies, it doesn't seem technically possible. There is a lot of contradiction in the testimony inter and intra witness.

One out of three caucasions in Japanese WW2 POW camps died; overwhelmingly from disease and starvation. And these were predominantly young fit men going in. So I have no problem with the idea that millions of a less fit demographic would die in German camps for the same reason. Most certainly they did. Given that millions were liberated, alive, from the German camps, millions had imigrated out of Europe as Nazi power grew, and given the original pre-war population, there isn't much room, mathematically speaking, for a 24,000/day murder rate.

If I said this in Europe, I would be jailed. If I say it here I am marginalized as a wacko. If somone had said this to me a few days ago, I would have assumed that person was a anti-semite nut.

[Leo]

My father has passed away, before my mother and sister could come over to make a visit and i got over there and their was a curtain blocking the room so i pulled the curtain over and saw the rest of my family there crying.

[Mr Someone]

This is not a reply specifically to the last poster, rather a general sort of ...attempt at saying the right thing.

You all have no idea what you are talking about.You have no idea of the suffering and atrocities that were inflicted on the Jews. You were not there. My father was there and he saw... Millions were murdered in the concentration camps and how many by gassing ? Does it matter ?

[michael duggan]

Turning this subject into an intellectual tit for tat discussion is very wrong. It does a diservice to the poeple who died quite horrible deaths after suffering unspeakable hardships. What happened is worse than we can possibly imagine.

We are doomed to repeat the lessons of history if we forget them.

[Ian Wardell]

I'm really sorry to hear about your loss Leo.

[Michael Prescott]

Leo, my sympathies to you and your family.

[Sandy]

I'm so sorry for your loss, Leo.

[Bryan.A]

MP I think you should make a different post altogether about the holocaust topic and just post it in there seperate from this one.

The comments section went from NDE's to Psi to Holocaust denial.

[Michael Prescott]

"I think you should make a different post altogether about the holocaust topic and just post it in there seperate from this one."

No, the last thing I intend to do is turn this blog into a forum for debating Holocaust revisionism. A few comments are one thing; a main post is another. That just gives legitimacy to a topic that I consider illegitimate.

[The Major]

Sorry for your loss, Leo.

[Roger Knights]

Regarding Holocaust denialism, here’s an extract from a review, “Right Makes Might,” by David Ramsay Steele, of The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays by L.A. Rollins. The review appeared in the April 2010 issue of Liberty, p. 49, online here: http://libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=504

“Public knowledge of the nuts and bolts of extermination — how gas chambers came to be built (and modified) and how they operated — underwent a revolution with the momentous work of Pressac (the complete text of his study is available online at http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation). He began his researches into Auschwitz inclined to revisionism, but changed his mind as he examined the documentary, chemical, and engineering evidence. Much of the evidence for the reality of the Holocaust was drawn together by van Pelt, in his work on the David Irving libel suit. Van Pelt’s detailed argument (including his dissection of the revisionist Leuchter Report) is available online at http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van. If Rollins were to compose a critique of van Pelt, he would be picking on someone nearer his own size.

“This accumulation of historical work has two implications for Holocaust revisionism. First, we now have a coherent and quite detailed account of what happened, an account in which elements that once looked peculiar (such as the absence of a written order from the Fuehrer) fall into place quite naturally. Second, a close acquaintance with this material means that many of the stock revisionist objections can’t get started. To take a simple example: revisionists have often claimed that the use of hydrogen cyanide for mass killing of humans would be impracticable, because of hazards to the people doing the gassing (Rollins, 140–41, refers to this, though without indicating that it convinces him). Some have even claimed there would be a risk of explosion from the gas igniting. This objection evaporates once we realize that far lower concentrations are needed to kill humans than to kill lice, especially if you’re not terribly anxious to make the human deaths mercifully quick, and that hydrogen cyanide was in fact routinely used to kill lice, without any reported explosions. Smaller amounts of hydrogen cyanide, for briefer periods, also help to explain why detectable traces of chemical derivatives of hydrogen cyanide are much smaller in the walls of the gas chambers than in the walls of delousing facilities, a favorite revisionist objection to the standard Holocaust account.

“Even David Irving, the clever historical writer who was won over to the revisionist position (mainly by his too-ready acceptance of the Leuchter Report), now finds that the available evidence compels him to acknowledge that gas chambers really were used as instruments of state policy in the mass killing of Jews and others ….”

[Roger Knights]

PS: Here are the next two paragraphs from Steele's review:

“Holocaust revisionism has similarities with Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory and the “9/11 Truth Movement.” All are able to find puzzles or discrepancies in the standard accounts, but they do not offer a worked-out alternative hypothesis for equally searching scrutiny. Generally, though admittedly not always, their objections vanish on closer acquaintance with the material. They frequently evince the “Murder, She Wrote” mindset: crime scenes must be perfectly tidy, so a single anomaly or loose end is sufficient to overthrow an entire body of quite well-corroborated theory. One must develop a sense of perspective: there are often little details of real-world crimes that remain not fully explicable.

“The questions the dissenters raise deserve to be pursued, and the questioners should not be abused or maligned, much less prosecuted or fired from their jobs. These deviants reject conventional stories because they think for themselves, instead of swallowing uncritically whatever the authorities tell them. While those who dissent will sometimes be right (for example, those who in early 2003 pointed to the clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction), very often they will be seriously in error, because they will have jumped into areas where they are unfamiliar with the complexities of the evidence. Explaining why the dissidents are mistaken, about the Holocaust, about the Kennedy assassination, about 9/11, and for that matter, about Intelligent Design, should be seen as wonderful opportunities for popular education. Unfortunately, defenders of the conventional accounts often discredit themselves by displaying anger and maligning the motives and character of the questioners.”

[Larry]

My advice to Michael Prescott, I know it's your blog, but it is not worthwhile arguing with Holocaust Revisionists like Erich, nothing you say is going to change their minds. I also don't see why he and his ilk should be shown any civility whatsoever (including if he ever posts up again on another thread just relating to science or whatever) and in fact Erich should just be called what he is - a stupid Jew-hater who pretends he is not, and he should just be ridiculed or ignored. But debated?? What is there to debate? These Holocaust Revisionist trolls don't care for facts by virtue of what they are - deranged bigots, so it doesn't matter what you write. They just need to be ridiculed or ignored and at the very least called what they are - stupid bigots. Erich your views on the Holocaust are shared by neo-Nazis and Muslim extremists like Ahmadinejad who wants to commit another one. It ain't no meaningless coincidence.

[Erich]

"Turning this subject into an intellectual tit for tat discussion is very wrong. It does a diservice to the poeple who died quite horrible deaths after suffering unspeakable hardships. What happened is worse than we can possibly imagine."

I agree and I'm going to totally drop it.

In departing, just so I'm not misunderstood, I am of Armenian descent. My paternal grandparents were the only survivors of their extended families of the genocide that was perpetrated by the Turks on the Armenians 1900 - 1922. After my grandmother died my grandfather lived with us and as I reached an age that he thought was appropriate he shared with me some of the horror that he experienced in his struggle to live and escape the region. I have a full appreciation for the potential of humans to deliberately submit each other to unspeakable cruelty and the profound impact of those actions on survivors.

My only purpose in delving into the gas chamber question was to demonstrate that it is possible for any of us to accept a standard explanation or history our entire lives without ever critically assessing the validity of the standard line, why we accept it, to shout down and demonize those who are critical of those beliefs even when there are some fair arguments (though perhaps ultimately wrong) made by the critics.

Leo, I am sorry for your loss.

[Paul]

I agree Erich, this looks like being shouted down to me. Suggesting that the best way to deal with an objection to what a person is saying as opposed to reason or silence is frankly risible.

[Paul]

I wish this had an edit facility. I meant to say ..suggesting that shouting a person down and insulting them is the best way to deal with an objection to what a person is saying as opposed to reason or silence is risible.

[Michael Prescott]

"a stupid Jew-hater who pretends he is not"

No, I don't see it like that. If someone has advocated Holocaust revisionism for years, then that characterization might very well be accurate. David Irving, for instance, when asked if he is an anti-Semite, likes to reply, "Not yet" - an answer that does not inspire confidence! But if someone has just looked into the question for the first time, and is still sorting through the arguments, then he shouldn't be impugned in that way.

There probably are some legitimate, though relatively trivial, questions about the details of the Holocaust. Maybe the figure of 24,000 victims a day is exaggerated, as Erich suggests. I can't say.

The trouble is that all too often, these minor controversies are used as steppingstones to much larger conclusions: that Hitler didn't know about conditions in the camps, that there was never any program of mass extermination, that Nazism has been misunderstood and libeled, etc. All of which in turn can serve as part of an attempt to rehabilitate Hitler's image, and to recruit neo-Nazis today.

Plus, as Michael Duggan says above, and as Erich agrees, there is something distasteful about engaging in a sterile, rarefied debate over the details of such a horrendous crime.

[Bruce Siegel]

"a stupid Jew-hater who pretends he is not"

Not a chance. I know Erich well enough from his posts to know that's not true.

I'm Jewish, by the way, (by birth only), and have been reading this thread with mixed feelings. Like others, I'm not sad to see the topic dropped, but I've also found it interesting for the same reason Erich has: to look at "why we . . . shout down and demonize . . ."

Exactly the sort of demonizing that you, Larry, seem remarkably quick and happy to indulge in.

"He and his ilk"—give me a break.

[Bruce Siegel]

Can anyone help me out? When you click my name below a post, it brings up a certain page. I want to change that URL. I changed my Typepad profile, but that didn't do the trick.

If you, MP, or someone else could provide a link to the relevant form or page, I'd really appreciate it!

[Ben]

"a stupid Jew-hater who pretends he is not"

Not a chance. I know Erich well enough from his posts to know that's not true -Bruce.

Well said, Bruce. Erich is a modern shaman in training. He boldly goes, he dares. Nothing is off-limits.

But we must all respect the Blog leader’s wishes.

[Roger Knights]

MP, Maybe copy the NDE stuff from this thread into a new thread titled "NDE 2" and restart it afresh?

[Trev.]

Anyone seen Toy Story 3 yet ? Is it as fab as the other two ?

[Michael Prescott]

"Is it as fab as the other two?"

I've heard it's better! (But I haven't seen it)

[Leo]

Thanks everybody who responded this sure is a rough time for me and my family.

[Trev.]

It's very tough to lose your Father, Leo. I lost mine not that long ago. When the pain has subsided a little, in a few months, you will be able to remember the good times without feeling so sad. And I am as certain that you will see him again one day as I am that I just typed these words.

Michael, Thanks, I'm looking forward to taking my son to see it.

[dmduncan]

If you think it's okay to play around with revising history to suit some narrow minded political agenda, be assured that some other group will get around to revising it about some thing that personally outrages you, and then you may not look upon it so kindly.

Less so the more successful it is.

Revising history is a nuclear option nobody should use.

I am not Jewish. But I will never forget the WWII movie footage of emaciated dead Jewish bodies piled on top of each other in pits and on the ground.

And I will never excuse it.

I will not play along with the sentiments that make it acceptable for devils like Zarqawi to behead fools who thought they'd help, like Nicholas Berg. Remember that video? Remember the slow torturous beheading of Nicholas Berg, on video for the world to see?

And I will not pretend that no historical precedent for murdering Jews en masse predated Hitler.

Ask the Qurayza Jews. Oh wait. Silly me. There are none left. Muhammad had all the men beheaded in 627 AD. 600 to 700 Nicholas Bergs in one day.

[Felipe]

Bruce - we shout down and demonize people who poke soft holes in the painful parts of human history....in the name of intelligent inquiry - because truth, when it's horrible and hurtful - in my view - sort of demands that we do.

Like you - I'm Jewish as well - and based from your web site info - probably a few decades younger.

Yet, I have family remaining who are stamped, scarred and tattooed from Nazi death camps.....and don't find it too hard to wrap my brain around the fact that people get a bit super sensitive to the notion that millions of our anscestors - women, children, babies...... weren't really gassed to death.

I find the idea that just sorta kinda flirting with the idea for shits and giggles that it may not really have happened.....to jews and non-jews alike....is pretty damn offensive.

Everyone has the right to believe what they want, I guess......

But it shouldn't be a surprise that people like Larry and others get a bit bent when they do.

[Paul]

I think it is unwise to try to prevent people from examining the facts of history insofar as they are available. I do not think any events in history are exempt from this. Attempts to prevent it and the demonisation mentioned seem to me counter-productive and hysterical.

The way in which those events are examined and the motivation behind them are another matter. I did not detect any improper motive in Erich's comments.

[michael duggan]

Excellent comment Felipe.

[Erich]

Felipe, Larry seems to get "bent" over a lot of different topics.

I am glad some readers here actually read and understood what I wrote and did not assign to me opinions and statements I never, and would never, hold or express.

Lectures re; the offensiveness of discussing the topic are not necessary as far as I am concerned.

In the Armenian community I grew up in (Detroit), there was always this black cloud hanging over my grandfather's generation. They could never enjoy life again. They walked around as if haunted by horror. This grim aura impacted the next (my fathers) generation profoundly as well. I saw it. I lived in it.

Yet, for almost a century the Turkish gov't has refused to admit what it did to the Armenians and the US govt has been complicit not only in their ability to continue to deny, but to arrest anyone who wishes to discuss the topic in alight unfavorable to the Turks.

Almost worse, to me and some others that I know, is the near hero worship of the Kurds that has cropped up in the media from time to time in recent history. When the Turks were too busy slaughtering Armenians in the North they (essentially) hired the Kurds to do their butchery in the South. The Kurds were all to glad to help. My grandmother's village, like many others, was raped, pillaged and massacred by Kurds. If you go to Urfa (or Orfa) today, the home of my grandmother's family, like all others there, is inhabited by the descendants of the Kurds that killed everyone of the the original Armenian inhabitants. The Kurds had been living the lifestyle of nomadic cutthroats for generations. Trust me. That is who they still are today. In that region, culture evolves very very slowly. Now, revisionist history has the Kurds as these noble freedom loving carriers of the flame of democracy. What a sick joke.

Yet I have never shouted down or name called anyone expressing positive opinions of the Kurds. Not have I ever done the same to anyone doubting the fact of the Armenian genocide. I have, instead, pointed doubters to educational sources that I felt they should examine before continuing to express their opinion. Oddly, in the converse, I have been shouted down for suggesting that the Kurds are not all that mainstream media revisionist say they are.

People don't like to have their views challenged; especially if those views are part of some group think. And much of "history" is merely group think propaganda; often written by the victors.

Yes, truly, "...it is unwise to try to prevent people from examining the facts of history insofar as they are available. I do not think any events in history are exempt from this."

[Michael Prescott]

This discussion prompted me to start reading Richard J. Evans' book "Lying About Hitler," a detailed examination of Irving's claims. So far I'm finding the book very compelling. Evans shows clearly, in meticulous detail, how Irving misused his sources.

A Kindle edition is available for $9.99 and used print copies start at under $4.00. The Amazon page is here:

tiny.cc/lk5qj

[dmduncan]

Cite facts. By all means, please do. But if someone cites facts selectively to purposely create doubt and misleading impressions, then that person is up to no good. I will not make believe that is harmless.

Freedom of speech is a knife that everyone carries in America, folks, and it doesn't mean freedom from dissenting speech.

[dmduncan]

"This discussion prompted me to start reading Richard J. Evans' book 'Lying About Hitler,' a detailed examination of Irving's claims. So far I'm finding the book very compelling."

The Library Journal review of that book is interesting:

"As an expert witness for the defense in last year's Irving-Lipstadt trial, Evans (history, Cambridge Univ.) was charged with determining whether David Irving was, as Deborah Lipstadt asserted, a Holocaust denier. Evans spent two years researching Irving's work, tracing his sources, and then evaluating his publications and public speeches. Moving easily from analysis of Irving's abuse of primary documents to a discussion of what constitutes legitimate historical methodology, Evans presents compelling proof that Irving is a Holocaust denier and why he should not be considered a legitimate member of the historical profession. Evans's depiction of the trial and of Irving's behavior in court is followed by an assessment of the implications of the judgment in Lipstadt's favor. Evans's point that some commentators seemed to forget that it was Irving who was attempting to silence Lipstadt, rather than academic historians and 'Jewish interest groups' attempting to stifle free speech, is well worth remembering. Evans eloquently argues that what was really on trial was history itself. Fortunately, history won. Ironically, Evans's carefully documented book has not yet been published in the U.K., as Irving's threats to bring a libel suit have already caused one company to drop publication."

[Puzzled]

I must have missed something here. Who is supporting Irving?

[dmduncan]

Nick Herbert.

[Erich]

Yes, Irving is a denier and if, in the course of his case for denial, he is playing fast and loose with historic facts, then, by all means, discredit him as an historian.

But Herbert is a different matter, I think. He seems to have been focussed on two aspects only. One that I promised not to discuss any more (and won't) and the other being the right to free speach and to question popular story lines. I only defended Herbert to the extent that I believe his defense of Irving is limited to these two areas. If herbert's orientation is toward a larger holocaust denial based on abuse of scientific inquiry, then I have issues with his credibility as well.

That being said, the US govt supports the Turkish Armenian genocide denial. So, by the reasoning of a Larry, the US govt, like herbert, should be shunned and distrusted in all things. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Priciples are priciples are they not?

This started out with Larry trying to blackball Herbert and his perspectives re; NDEs because of his defense of Irving.

[Roger Knights]

"the US govt supports the Turkish Armenian genocide denial."

The situation is actually one where realpolitick has trumped scruples. The US congress was set to pass a resolution condemning Turkey, which then threatened some sort of retaliation or non-cooperation in the war on terror, at which point congress, at the urging of the administration, tabled the matter. (Or such is my recollection of events.)

[Erich]

Yeah, something like that, Roger.

Makes you wonder in what other areas realpolitick has trumped scuples. Makes you wonder about a lot of things - for some people makes them wonder about 9/11.

Makes me wonder if Larry and dmduncan have called their elected reps and demanded a cessation of the official policy of genocide denial.

[Larry]

I am not going to argue with a Holocaust Revisionist, it is beyond the pale - but I wouldn't expect a Holocaust Revisionist like Erich to make any sense and respect basic facts and he doesn't.

Since Erich denies the extent of the Nazi genocide of Jewry, what is Erich's comment above supposed to mean?? After all I don't deny the Turkish genocide of the Armenians. I am not the one questioning any facts about any holocaust, unlike Erich. So Erich makes no sense (and Erich gets the US stance on the Turkish genocide of the Armenians entirely wrong btw, the US govt doesn't deny the Armenian genocide, they are just pathetically looking the other way out of realpolitik), but then again what else would one expect from Erich, the Holocaust (of Jewry) Revisionist, but getting his facts wrong?

Nick Herbert shares David Irving's views on the Holocaust, ie like Irving, Herbert is a Holocaust Revisionist and endorsing Irving's views makes Herbert an extreme Revisionist/Denier. That's why I said he should be shunned. I do realise Holocaust Revisionists and other bigots of assorted stripes could care less if somebody like Herbert holds the same opinions of the Holocaust as extreme right-wing fascists like Irving (which Herbert does), but then what else to expect? My call for him to be made persona non grata had nothing to do with his opinion on NDEs, evolutionary theory, vaccines, his opinion on the state of Hollywood cinema or whether he prefers beer to wine or whatever else.

Erich shares his Revisionist opinions on the Holocaust with people like neo-Nazis and Muslim jihadists who are hoping to make the world Judenrein and committ another Holocaust - tell me Erich (and Prescott for that matter) is that just a meaningless coincidence? No I don't really expect an answer here of course.

To Prescott - I suggest the next time you see any self-respecting Jew (if you have any contact with any) that you let them know that you don't necessarily consider Holocaust Revisionism to be anti-Semitic (one wonders where Prescott draws the line with anti-Semitism or if he even has one). Maybe if you ever bump into Dean Radin (of Polish Jewish extraction), who lost at least half his family to the Nazis, you let him know that people like Erich who clearly imply that many of the Jewish (and non-Jewish) camp survivors were lying about either the scale or nature or both of the exterminations (despite all the evidence to the contrary) are not necessarily anti-Semitic. You don't see it that way, they might be anti-Semitic, they might not be, depends how long they have held these views blabla. You don't see it as cut and dried at all.

Alright?

[Michael Prescott]

The level of discussion on this blog has sunk to an all-time low. Last night I thought about shutting down the blog altogether. But then I thought: Why should I do that, when a much simpler remedy is available?

What I'm going to do is go through the two threads on 9-11 Trutherism and Holocaust denial, make a list of all those who supported either of these positions, and ban all of them from ever commenting again. I am also going to ban Larry, because he is an insulting, offensive jerk who deliberatively misconstrues what other people (including me) have said.

Is this censorship? Technically no, since only the government can censor. But in a loose sense, yes, it is. Tough. I'm sick of reading this garbage on my own blog. It's personally embarrassing to me.

[Trev.]

Michael,
There is a very interesting post in the comments thread of Alex's latest podcast. From a person called Rudolf Smit. He has produced a PDF(nearly at the bottom of the page) which completey discredits Woerlee's conjecture on the case of the dentures. He apparently tracked down the male nurse who removed the teeth and said nurse is certain that he removed the dentures before CPR was begun. CERTAIN. This is extremely important because the patient reported that he SAW the dentures being removed. But Smit's paper shows that 'that' was impossible because the man was completely comatose.

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks for the info, Trev. For those who are interested, here's a direct link to the PDF on the "dentures" case:

tiny.cc/ti8y7

[Bruce Siegel]

“I'm sick of reading this garbage on my own blog. It's personally embarrassing to me.”

I hear you, Michael. I’ve suspected that you must feel that way, at times. Probably, often enough, about stuff that I myself write. :o)

But yesterday, I was actually feeling good about the direction this particular thread had taken. It seems to me that (except for Larry’s comment today) we’ve managed to arrive at some some pretty thoughtful conversation.

I also took a quick look over the thread and couldn’t find anyone who’s a Holocaust denier, so I’m wondering who you’re referring to.

Anyway, I’ll be interested to see what develops from here.

[Michael Prescott]

I suppose I should comment briefly on Larry's remarks above.

He wrote, "You don't see it that way, they might be anti-Semitic, they might not be, depends how long they have held these views blabla."

To me, it's obvious that there is a difference between someone who has looked into a subject for a few hours and drawn a few tentative, provisional conclusions, versus someone who has immersed himself in the subject for years, knows all the arguments and evidence against his position, and continues to dogmatically maintain his position anyway.

I'm willing to cut the first person some slack, but not the second one.

[Roger Knights]

MP: I hope you won't ban ZC, who is the #2 contributor here (after you).

[dmduncan]

"Makes me wonder if Larry and dmduncan have called their elected reps and demanded a cessation of the official policy of genocide denial."

Who represents me, Erich? Why would I call a senator or a congressman who will politely listen to my comment, send out a form letter thanking me, and who then does what he wants, which is no different than what he was going to do before I called???

[dmduncan]

Ouch, MP. Thought you might be interested:

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/07/ipad-owner-are-selfish-elites-critics-are-independent-geeks-says-study/

[Kris]

so once again reality bits Woerlee in the butt.

[michael duggan]

Michael P, I am relieved you chose not to shut down this blog. It is an excellent resource and one which I (and I'm sure many others) have benefited from considerably.

[Trev.]

Micheal Duggan,

If that is a snarky response to Kris, why don't you take a few minutes to look at the paper from Rudolf Smit.

If it's not, apologies.

[Kris]

Don't think Duggan said anything to me...

[Michael Prescott]

"Ouch, MP."

The study says iPad owners are six times more likely to be "wealthy, well-educated, power-hungry, over-achieving, sophisticated, unkind and non-altruistic 30-50 year olds."

Hmm. I'm not sure how much of that applies to me, but some of it does!

The study seems to boil down to this: iPad owners are older and have more money; iPad critics are younger and have less money.

That sounds about right.

"Don't think Duggan said anything to me..."

I don't think so either.

[michael duggan]

Me neither!
(Looks confused!)

[Trev.]

Michael D,

Quite obviously I need some treatment for my paranoia.

A sincere apology to you.

[Larry]

where did I misconstrue what you said Michael P? Oh wait I'm banned this won't go through. Are you kidding, I let you off the hook?

[Larry]

I meant to say 'let you off the hook' (sans question mark). Wait am I unbanned now? Or will my comments be deleted?

In that case re Erich (and maybe this will be deleted but I take a chance)..

I called out Erich for an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist on the 'rooting for JREF' thread where Erich wrote the following re 9-11:

"However, I do think there could have been a conspiracy - from within the US gov't - to allow them to carry out their sinister plans. Especially when you have equally fanatical people in the US gov't, like say Richard Perle, stating shortly before the event, that the US needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to motivate us to sieze (what he and his neocon cromies saw as) the historic opportunity to become a unilateral power in the world; imposing a pax-americana through use of military force (well documented; google richard perle new pearl harbor neocons project for new american century)."

So Erich on that very thread where he acknowledged that the hijackers were Muslim extremists, nevertheless clearly implies that it's possible that a notable JEW Richard Perle somehow orchestrated behind the scenes with the Muslim extremist hijackers who hate Perle to death because he's a Jew, to carry out the mass murder of thousands of Perle's fellow Americans on 9-11 (and that would include Republicans and fellow Jews among them!!), one assumes for the purpose of dragging America into a war etc.

Blaming a Jew/s for pulling the strings behind the scenes for the most notorious terrorist atrocity in the Western World in the twenty-first century - 9-11, in which thousands of Americans including Jews were incinerated, when in fact jihadists were solely responsible, is thus not only indicative of 9-11 'Trutherism' and ridiculous conspiracy woowoo in general, it is worse than that.. Blaming the JEW behind the scenes for a terrible evil terrorist atrocity to further his own nefarious ends (and one assumes perhaps the nefarious rapacious goals of others nudge nudge wink wink) when of course no Jews nor Catholics nor Protestants nor Apaches nor Eskimos nor secular humanists nor Hindus had anything to do with the terrible evil that was the 9-11 atrocity; is not merely anti-Semitic, it is pathological anti-Semitism - classic Medieval anti-Semitism of the 'human devil Jew behind the scenes plotting to destroy the lives of the gentile innocents for his own sinister ends' type. So Erich's Holocaust Revisionism came as no surprise to me, it is entirely consistent with his 9-11 conspiracy woowoo in which he thinks it plausible that an influential Jew played a major role in that act of mass murder for which jihadists are responsible.

Note how Erich's MO on his 9-11 conspiracy woowoo is the same as his MO on his Holocaust Revisionism, he denies that he's a 9-11 conspiracy theorist while at the same time saying maybe a powerful Jew was involved behind the scenes and he doesn't deny the Holocaust, just denies the extent or the nature of the deaths or both of the Holocaust victims as Holocaust Revisionists are wont to do, and then on both threads he expressed outrage at being called anti-Semitic by me. Whatever would give one that impression?

[Larry]

Bruce Siegel writes:
"I also took a quick look over the thread and couldn’t find anyone who’s a Holocaust denier, so I’m wondering who you’re referring to."

Does somebody want to help Bruce Siegel out here? He doesn't see any Holocaust Denial in this thread apparently. To be technical, I never said Denial per se, I said Holocaust Revisionism. Well there's Erich and Paul see? (at the least)

Endorsing the views of David Irving, one of the most notorious Holocaust Revisionists in the world on the gas chambers alone, as Herbert does and clearly Erich does (it's all there above), is Holocaust Revisionism in principle. Irving has been entirely discredited on this front - what he has said on the gas chambers are lies, distortions and fabrications. Herbert ignores the fact that Irving (an extreme right-wing fascist) has been discredited here and on the Holocaust as a whole and has no credibility, yet Erich believes Herbert and Irving are possibly credible on this issue of the gas chambers, that there may be something to Herbert's and Irving's position here, the jury isn't in...even though the very literal judge and jury is in. Irving was entirely and emphatically discredited during the Lipstadt and Penguin Books vs Irving libel trial in the UK some years ago now, yet you wouldn't know it from the likes of Erich and you never will.

It does make a difference btw (Erich's protestations to the contrary - "a meaningless detail") saying the Jews died from disease and starvation rather than gas (of course many did die from disease and starvation) but saying those who actually were murdered in the gas chambers died from disease and starvation instead - as Erich clearly does; since you are saying they died from the neglect and apathy and indifference of the Nazis rather than the cold extreme bigotry and genocidal bloodlust and unsurpassable HATE of the Nazis and the wilful humiliation and trauma they thus inflicted on Jews sent to the gas chambers in their last moments. In other words it is downplaying the evil of the Nazis considerably, the Jews died through Nazi indifference and incompetence rather than through premeditated pre-planned purposeful murder and humiliation of the most despicable kind, to reiterate the point Prescott made. So Erich's falsehoods on this front are two-fold, "a meaningless detail" and the lie about the gas chambers per se.

Erich wrote (in response to Prescott pointing out some obvious facts re the Holocaust and Irving):

"The quality of the evidence you cite has been called into question.

http://www.codoh.info/newrevoices/nrillusion.html

interesting link displaying the basics of the revivionist case which addresses the "evidence" of planned genocide"

Did anybody bother to follow-up on Erich's "interesting link" that he recommends above on the gas chambers and Holocaust question?

It is standard gas chambers denial entitled 'The Auschwitz ' Gas Chamber' Illusion' (authored by Nicholas Kollerstrom a well-known UK historian of science and science writer interested in marginal and liminal science and well-known in UK 'crop circle' circles!!) and Holocaust Revisionist claptrap and Kollerstrom's sources are among the most notorious Holocaust Revisionists/Deniers and anti-Semites in the West - Zundel, Butz, Irving and others. The worst in other words.

Erich's recommended link is part of the CODOH website and organisation (Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust) ie a Holocaust Revisionist group founded by Bradley Smith, one of the most notorious Holocaust Revisionists in the States, in 1987 with Mark Weber a very well-known Holocaust Denier. So Erich puts up a link approvingly, recommending the contents as plausible and perhaps valid and accurate (it makes more of an impression on Erich than the 'official history' that much is clear), a link to CODOH, a notorious Holocaust Revisionist organisation founded by well-known hardcore Holocaust Deniers Smith and Mark Weber and one that heartily recommends the Holocaust Denial writings of Irving, Butz, Zundel and others - ie all the who's who in the Holocaust Denial zoo. At the front page of CODOH is a photo of an old man and a woman and the thought bubble "where's the tattoo" and these remarks on Eli Wiesel:

"Elie Wiesel is the most visible representative of “The Holocaust” and the most highly-rewarded of its alleged victims. Elie Wiesel has made fantastic charges about concentration camp atrocities, many that were not believable and were therefore subsequently attributed as being “literary devices.” Elie Wiesel’s descriptions of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, where he claims to have spent a year of his life, are full of inaccuracies and contradictions, and even obvious falsehoods."

You can imagine the rest...

But Erich is just "only trying to get a more general discussion concerning open mindedness" and goring "sacred cows" don't you know?

Prescott on Irving:

"All this Irving must ignore or reinterpret. Whatever he's up to, it's not a quest for truth."

The same can be said for Erich, he is not on a quest for truth despite his lying to the contrary.

Larry on Erich (further up):
"a stupid Jew-hater who pretends he is not"

Bruce Siegel in response:
"Not a chance. I know Erich well enough from his posts to know that's not true"

Ben in response:
"Well said, Bruce. Erich is a modern shaman in training. He boldly goes, he dares. Nothing is off-limits"

Nothing somebody like Erich says can be taken at face value, including his claim that he has just looked into this issue of the gas chambers or whatever else for a few hours, and he just wants to get at the truth and question taboos etc. Nothing that Holocaust Revisionists and extreme conspiracy theorists say (and that includes Erich who thinks a Jew played a leading role in orchestrating 9-11) by fact of what they are can be taken at face value. Erich and his ilk bend and weave, dodge and dive, speak out of two sides of their mouth. As I write way up above:

I have noticed a lot of people like Erich out there, you see them commentating all over indymedia type sites, and their MO is this.. 'the Holocaust was terrible, plenty Jews died, there was disease blabla..BUT there is a lot in the 'official history' that makes no sense, appears exaggerated especially about the gas chambers, not that Jews weren't gassed BUT etc etc' They try to soften the blow and the bigotry of their Holocaust Revisionism this way, it's typical new anti-Semitism.

I prefer the honest upfront kind, at least neo-Nazis and Muslim jihadists are honest about what they are and admit their bigotry.

[The Major]

Larry, when it comes to the Holocaust I would say, I would rather believe a lie then try and expose it.

However, that's irrelevant because I believe millions of Jews were killed in the concentration camps, many of whom in gas chambers. It's a subject that terrifies and saddens me, and I see little point in debating it.

Believe me, if MP felt Erich was truly questioning the Holocaust, he'd have closed the comments. He did it previously with 9/11 'truthers' (it was a while back) and with someone claiming Nazis were 'regular people' and therefore shouldn't be judged. I think he's right not to tolerate certain subjects being discussed due to the pain it can cause people by reading them.

I just think though that right now, you're a little bit too caught up in the argument. I'd recommend sitting the next couple of plays out. For your own good as well.

[Bruce Siegel]

Larry, I wish I were a better listener. Truly. When someone speaks to me, I'm often hearing what I want to hear, or thinking about what I'm going to say next.

But when it comes to not caring about what others are trying hard to say, you take the cake.

[michael duggan]

Oh why can't we talk about non-local consciousness, like the old days? !!

[Trev.]

Michael Duggan,

If that is a snarky response to.....

Just kidding of course. I'm feeling much better now after the therapy. :D

[dmduncan]

I think this is the danger of taking the paranormal seriously. Too many people go off the deep end and get lost. They don't know how to distinguish between what is reasonably questionable and what is not. The compass is lost. Everything looks equally real, equally false. (And I hope I have made enough comments by now that people know that my first two sentences are not a denial of the paranormal).

And with that sort of delusion the most awful history is more likely to repeat itself.

Yes, people have a right to question what they want, to say what they think. Well, unless you are Oriana Fallaci and you live in Italy. Or France.

But then, quoting the simple wisdom of country singer Charlie Daniels, then you have to live with it. Right? The tape isn't over anybody else's mouth either.

Thank God for Evans. How many other people out there or in here would have spent two years meticulously showing that Irving was full of shit?

How many people are vulnerable to lies and distortions of other kinds because there IS NO Evans doing the same thing for other issues where scoundrels with letters after their names blatantly abuse the trust they know those letters will give them?

[Michael Prescott]

I thought I had banned Larry, but evidently he has several IP addresses. I am doing my best to block each one as it comes up.

"Are you kidding, I let you off the hook"

Yes, by implying I'm an anti-Semite. Go away, Larry, you are not welcome here.

[Ben]

My old history teacher used to say this: it's not what you say, it's the way that you say it. To win an argument, you need to woo your audience, not bully them. You can never convince people against their will, even if your findings are flawless and your logic is laudable.

At another time he said: you can win an argument and lose a friend. Better to keep schtum.

[Paul]

Yes Ben but remember not to woo woo your audience :)

[Ben]

It does not do,
It does not do,
To split in two;

Alas! It’s true,
We are too few
Are me and you.

So, Christian, Jew,
Muslim, Hindu
If you love woo,

You must subdue
The bold cuckoo
Within your crew.

Then you can boo
All who pooh-pooh
Your lovely woo.

[Roger Knights]

On Coast to Coast AM tonight (Friday) in five minutes, at 10:35 PM Pacific, there will be a gues discussing NDEs. Here's the blurb from the C2C site:

"During the first half of the program, George Noory welcomes author Alissa Al-Chokhachy, who will discuss some of the 'miraculous moments' she has seen during her time as a nurse, such as after-life communication and near death experiences."

[Roger Knights]

Here's the guest's website, where you can buy her book,
http://www.miraculousmoments.com/

Here's the book blurb from her site:
"Miraculous Moments: True Stories Affirming That Life Goes On contains over eighty-eight first hand accounts of after death communication, nearing death awareness and near death experiences. Unexpected communication from deceased loved ones can bring hope and comfort to the dying and the bereaved. The memorable testimonials shared within Miraculous Moments provide invaluable reassurance that love and life are eternal."