3 ms·

Its important to look for supporting evidence and gather facts. Yes you're right the masses still believes everything they see on TV and other officially contro

Its important to look for supporting evidence and gather facts. Yes you're right the masses still believes everything they see on TV and other officially controlled media. The more time someone believes something, the more time it takes to break him out of it. As for conspiracy theorists these people generally have had atleast 1 experience in the past, where they had picked the right trail and were mislead. These guys generally tend to negate everything they get from mainstream sources and continue to advertise their version of events. I am not saying they are wrong or right, its just psychology. Most of these guys just need a single clue to say to themselves, "You see, i was right".

stifledissent 12y ago
> Its important to look for supporting evidence and gather facts. That's a reasonable stance. I tend to agree with you. It seems uncontroversial that it is important to look for supporting evidence and gather facts. I wonder what do you make of this public statement, published by Le Monde and written by 34 French scholars, made in February of 1979: "The question of how technically such a mass murder was possible should not be raised. It was technically possible because it occurred... There is not nor can there be a debate over the existence of the gas chambers." Do historians get a pass? Do they not need to look for supporting evidence and gather facts? I don't mean to be inflammatory so please don't vote me down. The point I'm making is that it's easy to dismiss "conspiracy theorists" for their silly ideas, and have these lofty goals of "evidence first", but when an extraordinary claim that is politically motivated stands on very shaky grounds, and "evidence first" is called into action as a modus operandi, then people are told they should not raise questions. I'd like to remind everyone that it is not controversial to state that there is no documentary evidence for the use of gas chambers between 1942 and 1945. This much has been stated in public television by Tim Sebastian in a 2000 BBC "Hardtalk" interview with a WW2 historian, and stated under oath by the leading WW2 atrocities historian Raul Hilberg. It's also important to talk about this because this places 99% of people firmly in the "conspiracy theorist" camp, as most people believe these unquestionable claims based on hearsay and not on any body of evidence. If someone disagrees and can show me wrong, please do so without naively assuming that I must have some racial agenda, which I can assure you - I don't.
- mturmon 12y ago
  You say you don't mean to be inflammatory. This is bizarre, because you have written a confused set of paragraphs taken out of the playbook of Holocaust deniers. You have quoted a small piece of an article from Le Monde (out of context). The context was the need to debunk claims by Robert Faurisson, who was and is a notorious Holocaust denier. You have also made truly outrageous claims about gas chambers, with justification, amazingly, from a television interview (unsourced) and a noted historian (unsourced). I am unconvinced. The only way I can make sense of what you have written is as an ironic gesture -- an unhinged collage of junk from one of the oldest conspiracy theories, the one that believes in a Jewish cabal.
  - stifledissent 12y ago
    Indeed the published Le Monde statement was in response to Faurisson. I don't see how this is important. What's important is the attitude of the historians and academics that made that statement. The statement is very clear in that it seeks to supress certain questions from being asked. I don't understand your accusation that the quote is "out of context". The context is that someone questioned something, and 34 scholars published a statement saying that they, as scholars, think that question should not be raised. I have no problem sourcing the statements I made here. For the BBC interview, see here (timestamp: 3:33): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4GFGMNm3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4GFGMNm3g which I quote below: David: "The judge says 'I always assumed that there was the evidence that Auschwitz had gas chambers, I was surprised to find that there wasn't until this case came along" Tim: "There wasn't documentary evidence, is what he said, he doesn't say there wasn't any evidence, he said there wasn't documentary evidence" David: "There were eyewitnesses and he relies on half a dozen eyewitnesses" The transcripts for the trial are available for you to investigate for yourself, but the BBC acknowledging in public there's no documentary evidence for it, and quoting from the trial itself, should be enough for you to investigate for yourself from now on, and should be convincing enough. I do not believe in the racial conspiracy theories you're trying to accuse me of. Nor do I need to. I do not need to believe in any conspiracy theory in order to be interested in the facts about WW2, and in order to understand that in the reality we live in, there is no documentary evidence for an event that is heavily glorified and propagandized in the mainstream education system and media.

stifledissent 12y ago

> Its important to look for supporting evidence and gather facts. That's a reasonable stance. I tend to agree with you. It seems uncontroversial that it is important to look for supporting evidence and gather facts. I wonder what do you make of this public statement, published by Le Monde and written by 34 French scholars, made in February of 1979: "The question of how technically such a mass murder was possible should not be raised. It was technically possible because it occurred... There is not nor can there be a debate over the existence of the gas chambers." Do historians get a pass? Do they not need to look for supporting evidence and gather facts? I don't mean to be inflammatory so please don't vote me down. The point I'm making is that it's easy to dismiss "conspiracy theorists" for their silly ideas, and have these lofty goals of "evidence first", but when an extraordinary claim that is politically motivated stands on very shaky grounds, and "evidence first" is called into action as a modus operandi, then people are told they should not raise questions. I'd like to remind everyone that it is not controversial to state that there is no documentary evidence for the use of gas chambers between 1942 and 1945. This much has been stated in public television by Tim Sebastian in a 2000 BBC "Hardtalk" interview with a WW2 historian, and stated under oath by the leading WW2 atrocities historian Raul Hilberg. It's also important to talk about this because this places 99% of people firmly in the "conspiracy theorist" camp, as most people believe these unquestionable claims based on hearsay and not on any body of evidence. If someone disagrees and can show me wrong, please do so without naively assuming that I must have some racial agenda, which I can assure you - I don't.

mturmon 12y ago
You say you don't mean to be inflammatory. This is bizarre, because you have written a confused set of paragraphs taken out of the playbook of Holocaust deniers. You have quoted a small piece of an article from Le Monde (out of context). The context was the need to debunk claims by Robert Faurisson, who was and is a notorious Holocaust denier. You have also made truly outrageous claims about gas chambers, with justification, amazingly, from a television interview (unsourced) and a noted historian (unsourced). I am unconvinced. The only way I can make sense of what you have written is as an ironic gesture -- an unhinged collage of junk from one of the oldest conspiracy theories, the one that believes in a Jewish cabal.
- stifledissent 12y ago
  Indeed the published Le Monde statement was in response to Faurisson. I don't see how this is important. What's important is the attitude of the historians and academics that made that statement. The statement is very clear in that it seeks to supress certain questions from being asked. I don't understand your accusation that the quote is "out of context". The context is that someone questioned something, and 34 scholars published a statement saying that they, as scholars, think that question should not be raised. I have no problem sourcing the statements I made here. For the BBC interview, see here (timestamp: 3:33): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4GFGMNm3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4GFGMNm3g which I quote below: David: "The judge says 'I always assumed that there was the evidence that Auschwitz had gas chambers, I was surprised to find that there wasn't until this case came along" Tim: "There wasn't documentary evidence, is what he said, he doesn't say there wasn't any evidence, he said there wasn't documentary evidence" David: "There were eyewitnesses and he relies on half a dozen eyewitnesses" The transcripts for the trial are available for you to investigate for yourself, but the BBC acknowledging in public there's no documentary evidence for it, and quoting from the trial itself, should be enough for you to investigate for yourself from now on, and should be convincing enough. I do not believe in the racial conspiracy theories you're trying to accuse me of. Nor do I need to. I do not need to believe in any conspiracy theory in order to be interested in the facts about WW2, and in order to understand that in the reality we live in, there is no documentary evidence for an event that is heavily glorified and propagandized in the mainstream education system and media.