That's exactly what's being claimed Russian1860Russian1860 wrote: Here is a definition of the word propaganda (from Encyclopedia Britannica):
A typical propagandist twists facts and spin stories, but when it comes to consecutive evidential argumentation, it turns out he can not hold water.Propaganda is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.
The 'holocaust' is THE conspiracy theory:Russian1860 wrote:Here is universally recognized point of view about this matter, which counters your claim:Kradmelder wrote: Here is another conspiracy theory for you: The holocaust. The only evidence is testimony of jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism ... ust_denial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of.[3]
The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations, that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty.
Like flat-earthers, they have to crutch on made up physics, magically disappearing ashes, mass graves moving for days from victims struggling underneath, diabolical were-wolf boogeymen that were so brazen to publicly declare their intentions, but that 'rushed to burn all the evidence' and on and on.
And, like flat earthers, holocaust cultists seek to bury scrutiny into piles of flawed 'proof', or worse, jailing those who disagree.
The BIG problem with this is that by definition, what is being claimed in this thread is that 'legitimate' sources in many matters are not really legitimate. It would be therefore -and obviously- impossible to demonstrate any such claim with only 'approved' sources. I think any honest person can see the logical 'flaw' (to put it mildly) in Wikipedia et al, when it comes to these things.Russian1860 wrote:Here is universally recognized point of view about this matter, which counters your claim:
You mean well Russian1860, but i think you are only looking at the surface
This just offers circular thinking and self referencing gems such as:
Since they witnessed the entire process, their testimony is vital in confirming that the gas chambers were used for murderous purposes and the scale to which they were used.
The Institute for Historical Review publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz, submitted his own testimony as proof but it was ignored. He then sued IHR in the United States and the case was subsequently settled for $50,000, plus $40,000 in damages for personal suffering. The court declared the statement that "Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944" was a fact.
And yet no evidence of the thousands upon thousands of cubic meters of human ash and bones. Not even the ash of the coal/wood used for the supposedly gigantic operation.
Here's a decently logical, realistic piece on Auschwitz, with plenty of pictures.
http://www.cwporter.com/bild1.htm