Is all denier information as deeply researched as this?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
sallyg
Member
Posts: 615
Joined: 11 Jan 2006 19:27
Location: Toronto, Canada

Is all denier information as deeply researched as this?

Post by sallyg » 02 Feb 2006 04:08

I was wandering through the Adelaide Institute website, looking for an update, a comment, anything on the ground penetrating radar study "allegedly" done in 1997.

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Though ... anuary.htm

I found this:
Did Six Million Really Visit The Holocaust Museum?

By Walter Lolich
April 12, 2000 | Issue 36•13
Walter Lolich

Did six million people really visit the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum since it opened in April 1993? That's what the United States Holocaust Memorial Council would have you believe, and if all you've been exposed to is its Zionist propaganda, you probably do. But just how many people have actually passed through the Holocaust Museum's doors?

Despite the wealth of evidence proving that the museum's visitor numbers are wildly exaggerated, it is truth seekers like myself who are labeled dangerous to society. Swayed by the Jewish agenda and its powerful lobby in Washington, millions of people have been duped into blindly accepting the museum's one-sided view of its attendance history. And those who attempt to set the record straight are promptly dismissed as "kooks," "liars," and, of course, "anti-Semites."

snip

Let's take a look at this supposedly well-visited museum. Just where do these attendance figures come from? You might be surprised by the answer: Speaking anonymously for fear of retribution, numerous Holocaust Museum workers have admitted that the six-million figure is "only an estimate." Furthermore, this misrepresentation includes not only visitors to the museum's Permanent Exhibition, which requires a pass, but also visitors to the rotating exhibits at the front of the building! Shocked? Anyone with a basic understanding of the way the Zionist propaganda machine works shouldn't be.

So, the supposed six million is not derived from the number of free tickets which have been distributed, but is instead a CAREFULLY AND DELIBERATELY MANIPULATED FIGURE which includes visitors to the museum who were unable to obtain a pass and only visited the all-access Wexler Learning Center. In other words, it includes visitors who could not in any way, shape, or form be counted! Even Sharon E. Underwood, one of the museum's own tour guides, admits that the question of how many people actually visited the museum remains "OPEN TO DEBATE." Yet the American Jewry continues to present six million as reality.

snip

Then there is the fact that a "computer glitch" wiped out all ticket data from May 14 to May 22, 1998. That begs the question, just how reliable are these computers that supposedly contain the museum's visitation records? And is it just a coincidence that those providing the six-million figure have clearly established ties to the museum's board of directors? It seems their "facts" are closer to the dangerous lie the museum and its sympathizers have so successfully gotten the public to buy into.

snip

Some will provide so-called "proof" of widespread interest in the museum in the form of newspaper clippings about its 1993 grand-opening ceremony. In one such article, which ran in THE JEW YORK TIMES, a journalist named DANIEL LEVINE wrote that 3,000 people attended. By studying the accompanying photograph, I was able to verify the presence of only 16 people. If this sort of skewed math, a fact-to-fiction ratio of 16:3,000, is applied to the alleged museum total of six million, the figure is reduced to 32,000.
The kicker? The posting on the Adelaide Institute website is a hotlink to The Onion. The Onion. Here:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33446

For those who may not be aware of The Onion, their latest headline is
PRESIDENT CREATES CABINET LEVEL POSITION TO COORDINATE SCANDALS
WASHINGTON, DC—In his State of the Union address to the nation last night, President Bush announced a new cabinet-level position to coordinate all current and future scandals facing his party. http://www.theonion.com/content/index
The question remains.. is this indicative of the depth of denier research skills, or is this Adelaide-specific?

User avatar
RACPISA
Member
Posts: 836
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 18:21
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by RACPISA » 02 Feb 2006 04:59

Wow, those deniers really have a thing with questioning six million! :P

Seriously, though, isn't the Onion a satirical publication? Is it possible that the article is a joke/satire? Someone posted one of those a while ago:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=25869

User avatar
sallyg
Member
Posts: 615
Joined: 11 Jan 2006 19:27
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by sallyg » 02 Feb 2006 05:46

RACPISA wrote:Seriously, though, isn't the Onion a satirical publication? Is it possible that the article is a joke/satire? Someone posted one of those a while ago:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=25869
Exactly, but the Adelaide Institute has posted it as fact. They don't deem to recognise satire or parody, even when it's at their expense.

alf
Member
Posts: 1343
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 10:45
Location: Australia

Post by alf » 02 Feb 2006 06:32

The Adelaide Institute was found guilty under the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 2000 for anti semitism and subsequentially the "Institute" lost its appeal in 2003 against that Commission findings. So two seperate courts found it to be an anti semetic body .

It is merely a hang out for racists/white supremists in Australia who like to pretend they are intelluctuals but everything they look at they see through antisemtic glasses. True second rate minds.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austral ... institute/

nickterry
Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 16 Jan 2006 23:20
Location: Bristol

Post by nickterry » 02 Feb 2006 10:47

Further to the original post and the link to the parody of revisionist logic re: Dresden -

I spent five months researching in the USHMM archives, and *personally saw* thousands of people coming in and out each day, because I'm a smoker and was up and down the lifts every couple hours. But, alas, I was so busy, I never made time to see the inside of the exhibitions. But I am assured they exist.


Sadly, the link to the Mad Revisionist Dresden parody is dead.


as an aside re: The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28566

'Holocaust Museum Cashier Has Yet Another Depressing Day'

This went up on the noticeboard at one of the museum's department, to general sardonic laughter from the worker bees, and harumphing from the management.

Thanks for the link, guys, I'll forward it to my friends over there. The ones with a black sense of humour, that is. Of whom there are many.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23511
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 02 Feb 2006 15:36


nickterry
Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 16 Jan 2006 23:20
Location: Bristol

Post by nickterry » 02 Feb 2006 16:24

thanks, Mr Moderator sir. Greatly enjoyed your dissection of the Dresden parody on the original forum thread.

Laments
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 10:28
Location: British Columbia

Post by Laments » 03 Feb 2006 05:37

alf wrote:The Adelaide Institute was found guilty under the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 2000 for anti semitism and subsequentially the "Institute" lost its appeal in 2003 against that Commission findings. So two seperate courts found it to be an anti semetic body .

It is merely a hang out for racists/white supremists in Australia who like to pretend they are intelluctuals but everything they look at they see through antisemtic glasses. True second rate minds.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austral ... institute/
Whats the difference between being antisemitic and criticizing jews?

Do jews want to be free from all critisizm, regardless of what the critique is?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23511
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 03 Feb 2006 05:57

Laments -- You wrote:
alf wrote:
The Adelaide Institute was found guilty under the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 2000 for anti semitism and subsequentially the "Institute" lost its appeal in 2003 against that Commission findings. So two seperate courts found it to be an anti semetic body .

It is merely a hang out for racists/white supremists in Australia who like to pretend they are intelluctuals but everything they look at they see through antisemtic glasses. True second rate minds.


http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austral ... institute/

Whats the difference between being antisemitic and criticizing jews?

Do jews want to be free from all critisizm, regardless of what the critique is?
Those questions are best addressed to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which made the finding, or, once you meet the access requirements, raised in The Lounge. The purpose of this section of the forum is to discuss the holocaust and 20th Century war crimes, not what -- as you put it -- "jews [sic] want", any more than it is to discuss criticism of "british columbians" or what they want.

Laments
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 10:28
Location: British Columbia

Post by Laments » 03 Feb 2006 06:18

David Thompson wrote:Laments -- You wrote:
alf wrote:
The Adelaide Institute was found guilty under the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 2000 for anti semitism and subsequentially the "Institute" lost its appeal in 2003 against that Commission findings. So two seperate courts found it to be an anti semetic body .

It is merely a hang out for racists/white supremists in Australia who like to pretend they are intelluctuals but everything they look at they see through antisemtic glasses. True second rate minds.


http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austral ... institute/

Whats the difference between being antisemitic and criticizing jews?

Do jews want to be free from all critisizm, regardless of what the critique is?
Those questions are best addressed to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which made the finding, or, once you meet the access requirements, raised in The Lounge. The purpose of this section of the forum is to discuss the holocaust and 20th Century war crimes, not what -- as you put it -- "jews [sic] want", any more than it is to discuss criticism of "british columbians" or what they want.

Well, how was the authors post about them being labeled antisemitic and therefore discredited relevant? It's ok to discredit someone for being antisemitic, yet anything further is irrelevant? Why is that?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23511
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 03 Feb 2006 06:38

Laments -- You wrote:
Well, how was the authors post about them being labeled antisemitic and therefore discredited relevant? It's ok to discredit someone for being antisemitic, yet anything further is irrelevant? Why is that?
It has to do with topicality. The thread is at least is vaguely related to the holocaust, although not by much. The author's post addressed the topic of the posting on the Adelaide Institute's website and the motivation of the Institute for making such a posting. Your questions have nothing to do with the holocaust, 20th century war crimes, the topic or the post. The finding of anti-semitism was made by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, not "the jews".
D. Topicality

The fourth rule of the forum is: "Keep the message on topic." There are two aspects to this rule. The first involves topics which may be discussed in this section of the forum. The second involves staying on topic when posting to a thread.

Permissible subjects for this section of the forum are the holocaust and twentieth century war crimes. If a thread isn't discussing something related to those subjects, it's off-topic.

Although there are occasionally exceptions, the forum management tries to keep a thread on a single topic. This makes it easier for readers to follow, and for researchers to subsequently locate, the discussions. If a poster would like to see further discussion of off-topic matters, please raise the subject in a pre-existing thread on that topic or, if there are no pre-existing threads, on a separate thread.

Non-complying posts are subject to deletion after warning.
H&WC Section Rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

Laments
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 10:28
Location: British Columbia

Post by Laments » 03 Feb 2006 07:11

David Thompson wrote:Laments -- You wrote:
Well, how was the authors post about them being labeled antisemitic and therefore discredited relevant? It's ok to discredit someone for being antisemitic, yet anything further is irrelevant? Why is that?
It has to do with topicality. The thread is at least is vaguely related to the holocaust, although not by much. The author's post addressed the topic of the posting on the Adelaide Institute's website and the motivation of the Institute for making such a posting. Your questions have nothing to do with the holocaust, 20th century war crimes, the topic or the post. The finding of anti-semitism was made by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, not "the jews".
D. Topicality

The fourth rule of the forum is: "Keep the message on topic." There are two aspects to this rule. The first involves topics which may be discussed in this section of the forum. The second involves staying on topic when posting to a thread.

Permissible subjects for this section of the forum are the holocaust and twentieth century war crimes. If a thread isn't discussing something related to those subjects, it's off-topic.

Although there are occasionally exceptions, the forum management tries to keep a thread on a single topic. This makes it easier for readers to follow, and for researchers to subsequently locate, the discussions. If a poster would like to see further discussion of off-topic matters, please raise the subject in a pre-existing thread on that topic or, if there are no pre-existing threads, on a separate thread.

Non-complying posts are subject to deletion after warning.
H&WC Section Rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

I never said it wasn't found by the Australian Commission. What I want to know is why Adelaides apparent antisemitism is related to it's research capacity or its credibility regarding such research. How can it be inserted as relevant, but the Idea that antisemitism is a bunk "motivation", that means little, cant be?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23511
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 03 Feb 2006 13:39

Laments -- You wrote:
I never said it [the anti-semitism of the Adelaide Institute] wasn't found by the Australian Commission. What I want to know is why Adelaides apparent antisemitism is related to it's research capacity or its credibility regarding such research.
You didn't ask that, Laments. Your questions were:
Whats the difference between being antisemitic and criticizing jews?

Do jews want to be free from all critisizm, regardless of what the critique is?
The topic of the thread is how the Adelaide Institute apparently took an anti-semitic parody article from a satirical site and reposted it. As I have already pointed out to you, your two questions have nothing to do with the holocaust, 20th century war crimes, the topic or alf's post. Your inquiry ("why Adelaides apparent antisemitism is related to it's research capacity or its credibility regarding such research") is answered by the circumstances which occasioned the topic -- the Adelaide Institute apparently took an anti-semitic parody article from a satirical site and reposted it.

If you want to address these issues: (1) how the Adelaide Institute made such a mistake, or (2) why, if reposting the parody was not a mistake, the Adelaide Institute would have reposted an anti-semitic parody at all, go ahead. Please don't wander off-topic.

Laments
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 10:28
Location: British Columbia

Post by Laments » 03 Feb 2006 17:52

And the point was that a lot of things are called antisemitism, and that a label of being antisemitic, in and of itself, doesn't by default discredit something or someone.

User avatar
sallyg
Member
Posts: 615
Joined: 11 Jan 2006 19:27
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by sallyg » 07 Feb 2006 01:17

Laments wrote:And the point was that a lot of things are called antisemitism, and that a label of being antisemitic, in and of itself, doesn't by default discredit something or someone.
The apparent inability to see the parody in the link to the Onion says something about research skills.

I do not discount the possibility that the Onion was linked for a reason other than Adelaide's culling seemingly supporting "facts" from any source.

I don't see the rationale for that, myself, and look forward to being enlightened.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”