Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Enterprise Was The Best. Trek. Ever.
15 views
Skip to first unread message
wheresou...@israels.wars
Nov 24, 2013, 5:12:40 PM11/24/13
to
"Enterprise" was the sixth, and to date latest, "Star Trek" television
series released for commercial broadcast and public consumption.
Though the show was originally planned to run for seven seasons, it
was prematurely canceled due to poor ratings, and only four seasons
were actually produced. It originally aired from 2001-2005, but
afterwards shown only in limited syndicated reruns, and sold on DVD.
Full episodes have since been made available for free streaming at
www.startrek.com.
For various reasons, not the least of which was the excessive amount
of ridiculous commercials that contaminated its initial run - an
extreme annoyance which made watching the show a generally unpalatable
experience, and the storyline more than somewhat difficult to follow -
I only saw probably no more than a dozen or so of the episodes during
the original life of the series.
Recently, however, I was able to watch a borrowed copy of the entire
series without any commercial interruption, and was surprised to find
myself convinced that "Enterprise" was actually, and by far the BEST
"Trek" series ever produced.
No. This is not a troll. And no, I am not kidding, either.
I actually think it is truly a shame that so many, including myself,
failed to recognize the superior quality of this series until it was
far too late.
In terms of actor performance, it was excellent. The cast of this show
obviously worked very hard to play their parts, and make their
characters interesting, likeable, and especially, believable. Every
one of them should receive honors, and due recognition for their very
fine, and successful efforts in that regard.
In the areas of camera work, lighting, sound, and overall production
values, it far exceeded any other Star Trek series or film to date.
The special effects were also superb, as was the design of the
Enterprise NX-01 itself, as well as the various vehicles used by the
other space-faring races.
The sets, costumes, and props were interesting, practical, and far
more realistic in design and function than anything seen in the
"trekverse" before or since. And one really notable and refreshing
thing - They finally got the flashlights right, even though they still
sometimes held them in that awkward and ridiculous fashion that
started with TNG.
As many viewers had previously, and understandably, expressed disdain
over the fact that such things as reset buttons, excessive
techno-babble, uninteresting aliens, and lack of original ideas or
individual character development plagued the previous series'
episodes, the producers of "Enterprise" apparently took great pains to
address those issues, and by and large, they succeeded.
The aliens were well designed, many looking far more "alien" than
those in previous shows. The Xindi arc itself represented a major, and
well executed effort to address viewer complaints of bland aliens and
tired stories.
And as far as storytelling goes, the tales spun by the writers of this
series were at least as good, and many times even better than anything
that came before.
The stories in Enterprise were primarily character based, and relied
rather sparingly upon technology to propel the plotline or solve many
problems. There was a greater degree of realism and believability to
the plots, without all of the "hocus-pocus", or even downright
hokeyness that plagued all of the other Trek incarnations, including
TOS. There was also far less techno-babble than TNG & Voyager, the
characters actually developed, and the reset button was practically
non-existent.
In Fact, the only criticisms I can muster after re-viewing the entire
series are as follows:
1. The producers' intent to market the show to younger viewers. In
some episodes, this was made far too obvious with unnecessary dialog
such as, "It's like being sent to the Principal's office.", or "Didn't
your mother ever tell you to (whatever)?".
2. The inclusion of that overrated fag Data and/or the old, flabby
Riker and Troi in a failed effort to appease the retarded whining fans
of that gay PC fest known as TNG.
On balance, the tale of Captain Archer, his ship, and his crew was
more than just an episodic TV show. It was a single, long-running
story arc, with only a few deviations into the more traditional,
"stand-alone" episodes. And although I admit there were a number of
sub-par episodes - as there are in many television series' - I think
they were fairly rare, especially compared to the ratio of outright
stinkers found in previous Star Trek incarnations.
I think if Enterprise hadn't initially been ruined by an excessive
amount of commercial breaks, and whined about by pedantic trek-tards
pathetically crying over their perceived violations of fat-assed
Roddenberry's "dream" (which was primarily to make barrels of
Hollywood jewbucks), it would never have suffered in the ratings as it
did, may even have surpassed its originally planned seven year run,
and surely would have gone on to become the vehicle for a top grossing
series of feature films.
And if you disagree with any of the above, you are nothing but a
blithering idiot who should an hero as soon as retardedly possible.
-.-
66 Questions and Answers on the "Holocaust"
1. What proof exists that the Nazis killed six million Jews?
None. All we have is postwar testimony, mostly of individual
"survivors". This testimony is contradictory, and very few claim to
have actually witnessed any "gassing". There are no contemporaneous
documents or hard evidence: no mounds of ashes, no crematories capable
of disposing of millions of corpses, no "human soap", no lamp shades
made of human skin, and no credible demographic statistics.
2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the
Nazis?
Extensive forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative evidence
demonstrates the impossibility of such a figure. The widely repeated
"six million" figure is an irresponsible exaggeration.
3. Did Simon Wiesenthal state in writing that "there were no
extermination camps on German soil"?
Yes. The famous "Nazi hunter" wrote this in Stars and Stripes, Jan.
24, 1993. He also claimed that "gassings" of Jews took place only in
Poland.
4. If Dachau was in Germany, and even Wiesenthal says that it was not
an extermination camp, why do many American veterans say it was an
extermination camp?
After the Allies captured Dachau, many GIs and others were led through
the camp and shown a building alleged to have been a "gas chamber".
The mass media widely, but falsely, continues to assert that Dachau
was a "gassing" camp.
5. What about Auschwitz? Is there any proof that gas chambers were
used to kill people there?
No. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was modified after the war,
and a room was reconstructed to look like a large "gas chamber". After
America's leading expert on gas chamber construction and design, Fred
Leuchter, examined this and other alleged Auschwitz gassing
facilities, he stated that it was an "absurdity" to claim that they
were, or could have been, used for executions.
6. If Auschwitz wasn't a "death camp", what was its true purpose?
It was an internment center and part of a large-scale manufacturing
complex. Synthetic fuel was produced there, and its inmates were used
as a workforce.
7. Who set up the first concentration camps?
During the Boer War (1899-1902), the British set up what they called
"concentration camps" in South Africa to hold Afrikaner women and
children. Approximately 30,000 died in these hell-holes, which were as
terrible as German concentration camps of World War II.
8. How did German concentration camps differ from American
"relocation" camps in which Japanese-Americans were interned during
WWII?
The only significant difference was that the Germans interned persons
on the basis of being real or suspected security threats to the German
war effort, whereas the Roosevelt administration interned persons on
the basis of race alone.
9. Why did the German government intern Jews in camps?
It considered Jews a direct threat to national security. (Jews were
overwhelmingly represented in Communist subversion.) However, all
suspected security risks – not just Jews – were in danger of
internment.
10. What hostile measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as
early as 1933?
In March 1933, international Jewish organizations declared an
international boycott of German goods.
11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?
Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline
in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced
"Judea Declares War on Germany".
12. Was this before or after the "death camp" stories began?
This was years before the "death camp" stories, which began in
1941-1942.
13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass
civilian bombing?
Britain— on May 11, 1940.
14. How many "gas chambers" to kill people were there at Auschwitz?
None.
15. How many Jews were living in the areas that came under German
control during the war?
Fewer than six million.
16. If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what
happened to them?
After the war millions of Jews were still alive in Europe. Hundreds of
thousands (perhaps as many as one and a half million) had died of all
causes during the war. Others had emigrated to Palestine, the United
States, and other countries. Still more Jews left Europe after the
war.
17. How many Jews fled or were evacuated to deep within the Soviet
Union?
More than two million fled or were evacuated by the Soviets in
1941-1942. These Jews thus never came under German control.
18. How many Jews emigrated from Europe prior to the war, thus putting
them outside of German reach?
Perhaps a million (not including those absorbed by the USSR).
19. If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the
commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess that it was?
He was tortured by British military police, as one of his
interrogators later admitted.
20. Is there any evidence of American, British and Soviet policy to
torture German prisoners in order to exact "confessions" for use at
the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?
Yes. Torture was extensively used to produce fraudulent "evidence" for
the infamous Nuremberg trials, and in other postwar "war crimes"
trials.
21. How does the "Holocaust" story benefit Jews today?
It helps protect Jews as a group from criticism. As a kind of secular
religion, it provides an emotional bond between Jews and their
leaders. It is a powerful tool in Jewish money-raising campaigns, and
is used to justify US aid to Israel.
22. How does it benefit the State of Israel?
It justifies the billions of dollars in "reparations" Germany has paid
to Israel and many individual "survivors". It is used by the
Zionist/Israeli lobby to dictate a pro-Israel American foreign policy
in the Middle East, and to force American taxpayer aid to Israel,
totaling billions of dollars per year.
23. How is it used by many Christian clergymen?
The "Holocaust" story is cited to justify the Old Testament notion of
Jews as a holy and eternally persecuted "Chosen People".
24. How did it benefit the Communists?
It diverted attention from Soviet war mongering and atrocities before,
during and after the Second World War.
25. How does it benefit Britain?
In much the same way it benefited the Soviet Union.
26. Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered mass extermination of
Jews?
No.
27. What kind of gas was used in German wartime concentration camps?
Hydrocyanic gas from "Zyklon B", a commercial pesticide that was
widely used throughout Europe.
28. For what purpose was "Zyklon B" manufactured?
It was a pesticide used to fumigate clothing and quarters to kill
typhus-bearing lice and other pests.
29. Was this product suitable for mass extermination?
No. If the Nazis had intended to use poison gas to exterminate people,
far more efficient products were available. Zyklon is a slow-acting
fumigation agent.
30. How long does it take to ventilate an area after fumigation with
Zyklon B?
Normally about 20 hours. The whole procedure is very complicated and
dangerous. Gas masks must be used, and only trained technicians are
employed.
31. Auschwitz commandant Hoess said that his men would enter the "gas
chambers" to remove bodies ten minutes after the victims had died. How
do you explain this?
It can't be explained because had they done so they would have
suffered the same fate as the "gassing" victims.
32. Hoess said in his "confession" that his men would smoke cigarettes
as they pulled bodies out of gas chambers, ten minutes after gassing.
Isn't Zyklon B explosive?
Yes. The Hoess confession is obviously false.
33. What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to
exterminate Jews?
The stories range from dropping gas canisters into a crowded room from
a hole in the ceiling, to piping gas through shower heads, to "steam
chambers", to "electrocution" machinery. Millions are alleged to have
been killed in these ways.
34. How could a mass extermination program have been kept secret from
those who were scheduled to be killed?
It couldn't have been kept secret. The fact is that there were no mass
gassings. The extermination stories originated as wartime atrocity
propaganda.
35. If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them,
why did they go along with the Germans without resisting?
They didn't fight back because they did not believe there was any
intention to kill them.
36. About how many people died in the concentration camps, including
non-Jews?
Competent estimates range from about 100,000 to 300,000.
37. How did they die?
Mainly from recurring typhus epidemics that ravaged war-torn Europe
during the war, as well as from starvation and lack of medical
attention during the final months of the conflict, when virtually all
road and rail transportation had been bombed out by the Allies.
38. What is typhus?
This disease always appears when many people are jammed together under
unsanitary conditions. It is carried by lice that infest hair and
clothes. Ironically, if the Germans had used more Zyklon B, more Jews
might have survived the camps.
39. What is the difference if six million or 100,000 Jews died during
the Second World War?
5,900,000.
40. Some Jewish "death camp" survivors say they saw bodies being
dumped into pits and burned. How much fuel would have been required
for this?
A great deal more than the Germans had access to, as there was a
substantial fuel shortage during the war.
41. Can bodies be burned in pits?
No. It is impossible for human bodies to be totally consumed by flames
in this manner because of lack of oxygen.
42. "Holocaust" historians claim that the Nazis were able to cremate
bodies in about ten minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one
body, according to professional crematory operators?
About an hour and a half, although the larger bones require further
processing afterwards.
43. Why did the German concentration camps have crematory ovens?
To dispose efficiently and sanitarily of the corpses of those who had
died.
44. Given a 100 percent duty cycle of all the crematories in all the
camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of
corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire
period such crematories were in operation?
About 430,600.
45. Can a crematory oven be operated 100 percent of the time?
No. Fifty percent of the time is a generous estimate (12 hours per
day). Crematory ovens have to be cleaned thoroughly and regularly when
in heavy operation.
46. How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?
After the bone is all ground down, about a shoe box full.
47. If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what
happened to the ashes?
That remains to be "explained". Six million bodies would have produced
many tons of ashes, yet there is no evidence of any large ash
depositories.
48. Do Allied wartime aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz (taken
during the period when the "gas chambers" and crematoria were
supposedly in full operation) show evidence of extermination?
No. In fact, these photographs do not even reveal a trace of the
enormous amount of smoke that supposedly was constantly over the camp,
nor do they show evidence of the "open pits" in which bodies were
allegedly burned.
49. What was the main provision of the German "Nuremberg Laws" of
1935?
They forbid marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews,
similar to laws existing in Israel today.
50. Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws?
Years before Hitler's Third Reich, most states in the USA had enacted
laws prohibiting marriage between persons of different races.
51. What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to
the "Holocaust" question?
An official report on the visit of an IRC delegation to Auschwitz in
September 1944 pointed out that internees were permitted to receive
packages, and that rumors of gas chambers could not be verified.
52. What was the role of the Vatican during the time six million Jews
were allegedly being exterminated?
If there had been an extermination plan, the Vatican would most
certainly have been in a position to know about it. But because there
was none, the Vatican had no reason to speak out against it, and
didn't.
53. What evidence is there that Hitler knew of an on-going Jewish
extermination program?
None.
54. Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?
As early as 1933, Hitler's government signed an agreement with the
Zionists permitting Jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine, taking
large amounts of capital with them.
55. How did Anne Frank die?
After surviving internment in Auschwitz, she succumbed to typhus in
the Bergen-Belsen camp, just a few weeks before the end of the war.
She was not gassed.
56. Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?
No. Evidence compiled by Dr. Robert Faurisson of France establishes
that the famous diary is a literary hoax.
57. What about the familiar photographs and film footage taken in the
liberated German camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these
faked?
Photographs can be faked, but it's far easier merely to add a
misleading caption to a photo or commentary to a piece of footage.
Piles of emaciated corpses do not mean that these people were "gassed"
or deliberately starved to death. Actually, these were tragic victims
of raging epidemics or of starvation due to a lack of food in the
camps toward the end of the war.
58. Who originated the term "genocide"?
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in a book published in 1944.
59. Are films such as "Schindler's List" or "The Winds of War"
documentaries?
No. Such films are fictional dramatizations loosely based on history.
Unfortunately, all too many people accept them as accurate historical
representations.
60. How many books have been published that refute some aspect of the
standard "Holocaust" story?
Dozens. More are in production.
61. What happened when the Institute for Historical Review offered
$50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?
No proof was submitted as a claim on the reward, but the Institute was
sued for $17 million by former Auschwitz inmate Mel Mermelstein, who
claimed that the reward offer caused him to lose sleep and his
business to suffer, and represented "injurious denial of established
fact".
62. What about the charge that those who question the "Holocaust"
story are merely anti-Semitic or neo- Nazi?
This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and honest
arguments. Scholars who refute "Holocaust" story claims are of all
persuasions and ethnic-religious backgrounds (including Jewish). There
is no correlation between "Holocaust" refutation and anti-Semitism or
neo-Nazism. Increasing numbers of Jewish scholars openly admit the
lack of evidence for key "Holocaust" claims.
63. What has happened to "revisionist" historians who have challenged
the "Holocaust" story?
They have been subjected to smear campaigns, loss of academic
positions, loss of pensions, destruction of their property and
physical violence.
64. Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation
for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic
freedom?
The IHR had been bombed three times, and was completely destroyed on
July 4, 1984, in a criminal arson attack. Numerous death threats by
telephone have been received. Media coverage of the IHR has been
overwhelmingly hostile.
65. Why is there so little publicity for the revisionist view?
Because for political reasons the Establishment does not want any
in-depth discussion about the facts surrounding the "Holocaust" story.
66. Where can I get more information about the "other side" of the
"Holocaust" story, as well as facts concerning other aspects of World
War II historical revisionism?
The Institute for Historical Review, P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA
92659, carries a wide variety of books, cassette and video tapes on
significant historical subjects.
For a more detailed explaination and analysis of this information,
please go to:
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/debatetoc.html
This information originally published by:
The Institute for Historical Review
P.O. Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659
http://www.ihr.org
series released for commercial broadcast and public consumption.
Though the show was originally planned to run for seven seasons, it
was prematurely canceled due to poor ratings, and only four seasons
were actually produced. It originally aired from 2001-2005, but
afterwards shown only in limited syndicated reruns, and sold on DVD.
Full episodes have since been made available for free streaming at
www.startrek.com.
For various reasons, not the least of which was the excessive amount
of ridiculous commercials that contaminated its initial run - an
extreme annoyance which made watching the show a generally unpalatable
experience, and the storyline more than somewhat difficult to follow -
I only saw probably no more than a dozen or so of the episodes during
the original life of the series.
Recently, however, I was able to watch a borrowed copy of the entire
series without any commercial interruption, and was surprised to find
myself convinced that "Enterprise" was actually, and by far the BEST
"Trek" series ever produced.
No. This is not a troll. And no, I am not kidding, either.
I actually think it is truly a shame that so many, including myself,
failed to recognize the superior quality of this series until it was
far too late.
In terms of actor performance, it was excellent. The cast of this show
obviously worked very hard to play their parts, and make their
characters interesting, likeable, and especially, believable. Every
one of them should receive honors, and due recognition for their very
fine, and successful efforts in that regard.
In the areas of camera work, lighting, sound, and overall production
values, it far exceeded any other Star Trek series or film to date.
The special effects were also superb, as was the design of the
Enterprise NX-01 itself, as well as the various vehicles used by the
other space-faring races.
The sets, costumes, and props were interesting, practical, and far
more realistic in design and function than anything seen in the
"trekverse" before or since. And one really notable and refreshing
thing - They finally got the flashlights right, even though they still
sometimes held them in that awkward and ridiculous fashion that
started with TNG.
As many viewers had previously, and understandably, expressed disdain
over the fact that such things as reset buttons, excessive
techno-babble, uninteresting aliens, and lack of original ideas or
individual character development plagued the previous series'
episodes, the producers of "Enterprise" apparently took great pains to
address those issues, and by and large, they succeeded.
The aliens were well designed, many looking far more "alien" than
those in previous shows. The Xindi arc itself represented a major, and
well executed effort to address viewer complaints of bland aliens and
tired stories.
And as far as storytelling goes, the tales spun by the writers of this
series were at least as good, and many times even better than anything
that came before.
The stories in Enterprise were primarily character based, and relied
rather sparingly upon technology to propel the plotline or solve many
problems. There was a greater degree of realism and believability to
the plots, without all of the "hocus-pocus", or even downright
hokeyness that plagued all of the other Trek incarnations, including
TOS. There was also far less techno-babble than TNG & Voyager, the
characters actually developed, and the reset button was practically
non-existent.
In Fact, the only criticisms I can muster after re-viewing the entire
series are as follows:
1. The producers' intent to market the show to younger viewers. In
some episodes, this was made far too obvious with unnecessary dialog
such as, "It's like being sent to the Principal's office.", or "Didn't
your mother ever tell you to (whatever)?".
2. The inclusion of that overrated fag Data and/or the old, flabby
Riker and Troi in a failed effort to appease the retarded whining fans
of that gay PC fest known as TNG.
On balance, the tale of Captain Archer, his ship, and his crew was
more than just an episodic TV show. It was a single, long-running
story arc, with only a few deviations into the more traditional,
"stand-alone" episodes. And although I admit there were a number of
sub-par episodes - as there are in many television series' - I think
they were fairly rare, especially compared to the ratio of outright
stinkers found in previous Star Trek incarnations.
I think if Enterprise hadn't initially been ruined by an excessive
amount of commercial breaks, and whined about by pedantic trek-tards
pathetically crying over their perceived violations of fat-assed
Roddenberry's "dream" (which was primarily to make barrels of
Hollywood jewbucks), it would never have suffered in the ratings as it
did, may even have surpassed its originally planned seven year run,
and surely would have gone on to become the vehicle for a top grossing
series of feature films.
And if you disagree with any of the above, you are nothing but a
blithering idiot who should an hero as soon as retardedly possible.
-.-
66 Questions and Answers on the "Holocaust"
1. What proof exists that the Nazis killed six million Jews?
None. All we have is postwar testimony, mostly of individual
"survivors". This testimony is contradictory, and very few claim to
have actually witnessed any "gassing". There are no contemporaneous
documents or hard evidence: no mounds of ashes, no crematories capable
of disposing of millions of corpses, no "human soap", no lamp shades
made of human skin, and no credible demographic statistics.
2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the
Nazis?
Extensive forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative evidence
demonstrates the impossibility of such a figure. The widely repeated
"six million" figure is an irresponsible exaggeration.
3. Did Simon Wiesenthal state in writing that "there were no
extermination camps on German soil"?
Yes. The famous "Nazi hunter" wrote this in Stars and Stripes, Jan.
24, 1993. He also claimed that "gassings" of Jews took place only in
Poland.
4. If Dachau was in Germany, and even Wiesenthal says that it was not
an extermination camp, why do many American veterans say it was an
extermination camp?
After the Allies captured Dachau, many GIs and others were led through
the camp and shown a building alleged to have been a "gas chamber".
The mass media widely, but falsely, continues to assert that Dachau
was a "gassing" camp.
5. What about Auschwitz? Is there any proof that gas chambers were
used to kill people there?
No. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was modified after the war,
and a room was reconstructed to look like a large "gas chamber". After
America's leading expert on gas chamber construction and design, Fred
Leuchter, examined this and other alleged Auschwitz gassing
facilities, he stated that it was an "absurdity" to claim that they
were, or could have been, used for executions.
6. If Auschwitz wasn't a "death camp", what was its true purpose?
It was an internment center and part of a large-scale manufacturing
complex. Synthetic fuel was produced there, and its inmates were used
as a workforce.
7. Who set up the first concentration camps?
During the Boer War (1899-1902), the British set up what they called
"concentration camps" in South Africa to hold Afrikaner women and
children. Approximately 30,000 died in these hell-holes, which were as
terrible as German concentration camps of World War II.
8. How did German concentration camps differ from American
"relocation" camps in which Japanese-Americans were interned during
WWII?
The only significant difference was that the Germans interned persons
on the basis of being real or suspected security threats to the German
war effort, whereas the Roosevelt administration interned persons on
the basis of race alone.
9. Why did the German government intern Jews in camps?
It considered Jews a direct threat to national security. (Jews were
overwhelmingly represented in Communist subversion.) However, all
suspected security risks – not just Jews – were in danger of
internment.
10. What hostile measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as
early as 1933?
In March 1933, international Jewish organizations declared an
international boycott of German goods.
11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?
Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline
in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced
"Judea Declares War on Germany".
12. Was this before or after the "death camp" stories began?
This was years before the "death camp" stories, which began in
1941-1942.
13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass
civilian bombing?
Britain— on May 11, 1940.
14. How many "gas chambers" to kill people were there at Auschwitz?
None.
15. How many Jews were living in the areas that came under German
control during the war?
Fewer than six million.
16. If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what
happened to them?
After the war millions of Jews were still alive in Europe. Hundreds of
thousands (perhaps as many as one and a half million) had died of all
causes during the war. Others had emigrated to Palestine, the United
States, and other countries. Still more Jews left Europe after the
war.
17. How many Jews fled or were evacuated to deep within the Soviet
Union?
More than two million fled or were evacuated by the Soviets in
1941-1942. These Jews thus never came under German control.
18. How many Jews emigrated from Europe prior to the war, thus putting
them outside of German reach?
Perhaps a million (not including those absorbed by the USSR).
19. If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the
commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess that it was?
He was tortured by British military police, as one of his
interrogators later admitted.
20. Is there any evidence of American, British and Soviet policy to
torture German prisoners in order to exact "confessions" for use at
the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?
Yes. Torture was extensively used to produce fraudulent "evidence" for
the infamous Nuremberg trials, and in other postwar "war crimes"
trials.
21. How does the "Holocaust" story benefit Jews today?
It helps protect Jews as a group from criticism. As a kind of secular
religion, it provides an emotional bond between Jews and their
leaders. It is a powerful tool in Jewish money-raising campaigns, and
is used to justify US aid to Israel.
22. How does it benefit the State of Israel?
It justifies the billions of dollars in "reparations" Germany has paid
to Israel and many individual "survivors". It is used by the
Zionist/Israeli lobby to dictate a pro-Israel American foreign policy
in the Middle East, and to force American taxpayer aid to Israel,
totaling billions of dollars per year.
23. How is it used by many Christian clergymen?
The "Holocaust" story is cited to justify the Old Testament notion of
Jews as a holy and eternally persecuted "Chosen People".
24. How did it benefit the Communists?
It diverted attention from Soviet war mongering and atrocities before,
during and after the Second World War.
25. How does it benefit Britain?
In much the same way it benefited the Soviet Union.
26. Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered mass extermination of
Jews?
No.
27. What kind of gas was used in German wartime concentration camps?
Hydrocyanic gas from "Zyklon B", a commercial pesticide that was
widely used throughout Europe.
28. For what purpose was "Zyklon B" manufactured?
It was a pesticide used to fumigate clothing and quarters to kill
typhus-bearing lice and other pests.
29. Was this product suitable for mass extermination?
No. If the Nazis had intended to use poison gas to exterminate people,
far more efficient products were available. Zyklon is a slow-acting
fumigation agent.
30. How long does it take to ventilate an area after fumigation with
Zyklon B?
Normally about 20 hours. The whole procedure is very complicated and
dangerous. Gas masks must be used, and only trained technicians are
employed.
31. Auschwitz commandant Hoess said that his men would enter the "gas
chambers" to remove bodies ten minutes after the victims had died. How
do you explain this?
It can't be explained because had they done so they would have
suffered the same fate as the "gassing" victims.
32. Hoess said in his "confession" that his men would smoke cigarettes
as they pulled bodies out of gas chambers, ten minutes after gassing.
Isn't Zyklon B explosive?
Yes. The Hoess confession is obviously false.
33. What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to
exterminate Jews?
The stories range from dropping gas canisters into a crowded room from
a hole in the ceiling, to piping gas through shower heads, to "steam
chambers", to "electrocution" machinery. Millions are alleged to have
been killed in these ways.
34. How could a mass extermination program have been kept secret from
those who were scheduled to be killed?
It couldn't have been kept secret. The fact is that there were no mass
gassings. The extermination stories originated as wartime atrocity
propaganda.
35. If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them,
why did they go along with the Germans without resisting?
They didn't fight back because they did not believe there was any
intention to kill them.
36. About how many people died in the concentration camps, including
non-Jews?
Competent estimates range from about 100,000 to 300,000.
37. How did they die?
Mainly from recurring typhus epidemics that ravaged war-torn Europe
during the war, as well as from starvation and lack of medical
attention during the final months of the conflict, when virtually all
road and rail transportation had been bombed out by the Allies.
38. What is typhus?
This disease always appears when many people are jammed together under
unsanitary conditions. It is carried by lice that infest hair and
clothes. Ironically, if the Germans had used more Zyklon B, more Jews
might have survived the camps.
39. What is the difference if six million or 100,000 Jews died during
the Second World War?
5,900,000.
40. Some Jewish "death camp" survivors say they saw bodies being
dumped into pits and burned. How much fuel would have been required
for this?
A great deal more than the Germans had access to, as there was a
substantial fuel shortage during the war.
41. Can bodies be burned in pits?
No. It is impossible for human bodies to be totally consumed by flames
in this manner because of lack of oxygen.
42. "Holocaust" historians claim that the Nazis were able to cremate
bodies in about ten minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one
body, according to professional crematory operators?
About an hour and a half, although the larger bones require further
processing afterwards.
43. Why did the German concentration camps have crematory ovens?
To dispose efficiently and sanitarily of the corpses of those who had
died.
44. Given a 100 percent duty cycle of all the crematories in all the
camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of
corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire
period such crematories were in operation?
About 430,600.
45. Can a crematory oven be operated 100 percent of the time?
No. Fifty percent of the time is a generous estimate (12 hours per
day). Crematory ovens have to be cleaned thoroughly and regularly when
in heavy operation.
46. How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?
After the bone is all ground down, about a shoe box full.
47. If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what
happened to the ashes?
That remains to be "explained". Six million bodies would have produced
many tons of ashes, yet there is no evidence of any large ash
depositories.
48. Do Allied wartime aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz (taken
during the period when the "gas chambers" and crematoria were
supposedly in full operation) show evidence of extermination?
No. In fact, these photographs do not even reveal a trace of the
enormous amount of smoke that supposedly was constantly over the camp,
nor do they show evidence of the "open pits" in which bodies were
allegedly burned.
49. What was the main provision of the German "Nuremberg Laws" of
1935?
They forbid marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews,
similar to laws existing in Israel today.
50. Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws?
Years before Hitler's Third Reich, most states in the USA had enacted
laws prohibiting marriage between persons of different races.
51. What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to
the "Holocaust" question?
An official report on the visit of an IRC delegation to Auschwitz in
September 1944 pointed out that internees were permitted to receive
packages, and that rumors of gas chambers could not be verified.
52. What was the role of the Vatican during the time six million Jews
were allegedly being exterminated?
If there had been an extermination plan, the Vatican would most
certainly have been in a position to know about it. But because there
was none, the Vatican had no reason to speak out against it, and
didn't.
53. What evidence is there that Hitler knew of an on-going Jewish
extermination program?
None.
54. Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?
As early as 1933, Hitler's government signed an agreement with the
Zionists permitting Jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine, taking
large amounts of capital with them.
55. How did Anne Frank die?
After surviving internment in Auschwitz, she succumbed to typhus in
the Bergen-Belsen camp, just a few weeks before the end of the war.
She was not gassed.
56. Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?
No. Evidence compiled by Dr. Robert Faurisson of France establishes
that the famous diary is a literary hoax.
57. What about the familiar photographs and film footage taken in the
liberated German camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these
faked?
Photographs can be faked, but it's far easier merely to add a
misleading caption to a photo or commentary to a piece of footage.
Piles of emaciated corpses do not mean that these people were "gassed"
or deliberately starved to death. Actually, these were tragic victims
of raging epidemics or of starvation due to a lack of food in the
camps toward the end of the war.
58. Who originated the term "genocide"?
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in a book published in 1944.
59. Are films such as "Schindler's List" or "The Winds of War"
documentaries?
No. Such films are fictional dramatizations loosely based on history.
Unfortunately, all too many people accept them as accurate historical
representations.
60. How many books have been published that refute some aspect of the
standard "Holocaust" story?
Dozens. More are in production.
61. What happened when the Institute for Historical Review offered
$50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?
No proof was submitted as a claim on the reward, but the Institute was
sued for $17 million by former Auschwitz inmate Mel Mermelstein, who
claimed that the reward offer caused him to lose sleep and his
business to suffer, and represented "injurious denial of established
fact".
62. What about the charge that those who question the "Holocaust"
story are merely anti-Semitic or neo- Nazi?
This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and honest
arguments. Scholars who refute "Holocaust" story claims are of all
persuasions and ethnic-religious backgrounds (including Jewish). There
is no correlation between "Holocaust" refutation and anti-Semitism or
neo-Nazism. Increasing numbers of Jewish scholars openly admit the
lack of evidence for key "Holocaust" claims.
63. What has happened to "revisionist" historians who have challenged
the "Holocaust" story?
They have been subjected to smear campaigns, loss of academic
positions, loss of pensions, destruction of their property and
physical violence.
64. Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation
for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic
freedom?
The IHR had been bombed three times, and was completely destroyed on
July 4, 1984, in a criminal arson attack. Numerous death threats by
telephone have been received. Media coverage of the IHR has been
overwhelmingly hostile.
65. Why is there so little publicity for the revisionist view?
Because for political reasons the Establishment does not want any
in-depth discussion about the facts surrounding the "Holocaust" story.
66. Where can I get more information about the "other side" of the
"Holocaust" story, as well as facts concerning other aspects of World
War II historical revisionism?
The Institute for Historical Review, P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA
92659, carries a wide variety of books, cassette and video tapes on
significant historical subjects.
For a more detailed explaination and analysis of this information,
please go to:
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/debatetoc.html
This information originally published by:
The Institute for Historical Review
P.O. Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659
http://www.ihr.org
Your Name
Nov 25, 2013, 1:07:06 AM11/25/13
to
In article <hdu499tcgqoq5uo5u...@4ax.com>,
Wrong.
"Enterprise" was the first attempt at rebooting the franchise, and as
such is not really part of the proper "Star Trek" franchise at all -
which is partly why it is not titled "Star Trek: Enterprise". After
that, the franchise was again rebooted by JJ Abrams silly movies.
In reality there is now three separate sub-franchises under the "Star
Trek" name, with the original real one having five shows and a series
of movies.
<wheresou...@israels.wars> wrote:
> "Enterprise" was the sixth, and to date latest, "Star Trek" television
> series released for commercial broadcast and public consumption.
<snip>
> "Enterprise" was the sixth, and to date latest, "Star Trek" television
> series released for commercial broadcast and public consumption.
Wrong.
"Enterprise" was the first attempt at rebooting the franchise, and as
such is not really part of the proper "Star Trek" franchise at all -
which is partly why it is not titled "Star Trek: Enterprise". After
that, the franchise was again rebooted by JJ Abrams silly movies.
In reality there is now three separate sub-franchises under the "Star
Trek" name, with the original real one having five shows and a series
of movies.
Wiseguy
Nov 25, 2013, 6:09:56 AM11/25/13
to
Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in news:251120131907061626%
Your...@YourISP.com:
Wrong.
Enterprise was a prequel not a reboot.
People like you and Graeme think Star Trek is real.
It is fiction.
With fiction there are always discrepancies.
Real fans deal with it.
Fanatics whine like babies.
Your...@YourISP.com:
Enterprise was a prequel not a reboot.
People like you and Graeme think Star Trek is real.
It is fiction.
With fiction there are always discrepancies.
Real fans deal with it.
Fanatics whine like babies.
wheresou...@israels.wars
Dec 24, 2013, 3:15:40 PM12/24/13
to
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:53:49 -0800 (PST), Graeme <graem...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Sunday, November 24, 2013 4:12:40 PM UTC-6, wheresou...@israels.wars wrote:
>> "Enterprise" was the sixth, and to date latest, "Star Trek" television
>>
>praise to offer to the show. Just vague assurances that this was great,
>that was great, et cetera. But very little to say about why they were.
>Probably because there's nothing to say. Accompanied as it is by a
>treatise on holocaust denial (also full of vague assurances), it's hard to
>take your post seriously.
>
>But you might want to check out the Agony Booth's writeup on "A Night
>in Sickbay" for a good explanation of what went wrong with Enterprise.
>
>http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Star_Trek/Enterprise/A_Night_in_Sickbay.aspx
First of all, your denial of my clearly stated specifics with regard
to my praise of the show is no more than that. Denial.
You seem to be very smug about your complacent ignorance. You may
want to check out my article here for a good explanation of what has
always been wrong with your HolyHoax:
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/i-dont-deny-any-holocaust-do-you/
Merry Christmas!
wrote:
>On Sunday, November 24, 2013 4:12:40 PM UTC-6, wheresou...@israels.wars wrote:
>> "Enterprise" was the sixth, and to date latest, "Star Trek" television
>>
>> No. This is not a troll. And no, I am not kidding, either.
>
>Yes you are. Reading your post, you seem to have little or no specific
>
>praise to offer to the show. Just vague assurances that this was great,
>that was great, et cetera. But very little to say about why they were.
>Probably because there's nothing to say. Accompanied as it is by a
>treatise on holocaust denial (also full of vague assurances), it's hard to
>take your post seriously.
>
>But you might want to check out the Agony Booth's writeup on "A Night
>in Sickbay" for a good explanation of what went wrong with Enterprise.
>
>http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Star_Trek/Enterprise/A_Night_in_Sickbay.aspx
First of all, your denial of my clearly stated specifics with regard
to my praise of the show is no more than that. Denial.
You seem to be very smug about your complacent ignorance. You may
want to check out my article here for a good explanation of what has
always been wrong with your HolyHoax:
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/i-dont-deny-any-holocaust-do-you/
Merry Christmas!
dx...@albury.nospam.net.au
Dec 25, 2013, 8:27:24 AM12/25/13
to
On 25/12/13 07:15, wheresou...@israels.wars wrote:
<Snip>
Daniel
<Snip>
> First of all, your denial of my clearly stated specifics with regard
> to my praise of the show is no more than that. Denial.
>
> You seem to be very smug about your complacent ignorance. You may
> want to check out my article here for a good explanation of what has
> always been wrong with your HolyHoax:
>
> http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/i-dont-deny-any-holocaust-do-you/
and what has any of that got to do with Star Trek??
> to my praise of the show is no more than that. Denial.
>
> You seem to be very smug about your complacent ignorance. You may
> want to check out my article here for a good explanation of what has
> always been wrong with your HolyHoax:
>
> http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/i-dont-deny-any-holocaust-do-you/
Daniel
wheresou...@israels.wars
Dec 26, 2013, 5:11:17 PM12/26/13
to
-.-
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/american-atheists-celebrate-50-years-of-attacking-christianity/
dx...@albury.nospam.net.au
Dec 27, 2013, 11:18:58 PM12/27/13
to
Daniel
wheresou...@israels.wars
Dec 28, 2013, 4:16:54 PM12/28/13
to
On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:18:58 +1100, "Dani...@teranews.com"
Too easy:
Bread and Circuses.
-.-
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/natural-born-killers/
Bread and Circuses.
-.-
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/natural-born-killers/
0 new messages