"I was in the big concentration camps in Germany. I must truthfully state that in no camp have I ever seen anything that might have resembled gas chambers." -- Dr. Benedikt Kautsky, Austrian Social Democrat and Jewish prisoner of various concentration camps from 1938-1945, including three years in Auschwitz, quoted in Auschwitz -- A Personal Account, p. 4 (source)
I don't remember when i began to realize that all was not right with what we're told by our government, the media and in our schools. The Watergate hearings, which were broadcast live on the boob-tube as i recall, may have been one of the early seeds that was planted in my young mind. Much later when i began looking into the John Kennedy assassination, it became clearer that something was very wrong with the U.S. government. As i looked into many more subjects over the decades, i continued to find that what the public is told about politics and important events is often a gross distortion of the truth and such is the case with the alleged Jewish Holocaust™.
As i recall, my first introduction to the historical revisionist take on the holocaust was watching a documentary by David Cole in which he traveled to Poland and presented some very convincing evidence that there are several serious problems with the official history which would have us believe that six million Jews were exterminated by those evil Germans during World War II. David's film fascinated me. Here's a Jewish kid, if only by birth, who dons his yarmulke and shoots a documentary at Auschwitz -- the epicenter of the holocaust -- and gets the director of the museum to admit on video tape that the alleged homicidal gas chamber in the main camp, which is the climax of the public tour, was a Polish reconstruction! As if the swimming pool weren't enough!
David's documentary presented a major problem in my mind because it stood in strong opposition to the history i had been taught all of my life up to that point in school and through Hollywood films such as the fictional Schindler's List and the powerful television series, The World at War. When a reasonably consistent version of a story is repeated for decades by official institutions, it can become very difficult, if not impossible, to re-evaluate ones beliefs, but here's a Jewish kid, not a Neo-Nazi or anti-Semite, who is poking holes in the broad side of the holocaust narrative that one could drive a tank through. Could any of this possibly be true?
After watching Coles' documentary i was left with a decision. Although i wanted to investigate further in an attempt to confirm the validity of the evidence Cole presented, i was pretty doggone sure i'd end up nose deep in a swamp rubbing elbows with Neo-Nazi and white supremacist types which i wanted nothing whatsoever to do with. Once i began researching in earnest however, i quickly discovered that although the Neo-Nazi types held a lot of accurate information, very rarely were they the original authors of it. In fact, the historical revisionist circles includes quite a few Jews, scholars and scientists and the documents, films, photographs, books and first-hand witness testimony they bring to the table completely and scientifically destroy the myth of homicidal gas chambers in the concentration, labor and transit camps in German occupied Europe.
And that, my friends, is precisely how you too can become a Neo-Nazi, Skinhead, racist, white supremacist, anti-Semitic, holocaust-denier; by asking questions! Nothing more is necessary in order to be adorned with any or all of these labels (and let's not forget "self-hating Jew" if you're Jewish) and, if you're lucky, that's all that will happen. If you're unlucky enough to live in any of the long list of countries where free speech and holocaust revisionism is illegal however, well then you could be in for a much worse flogging, and even if you don't your career could be terminated, your house could be firebombed, you could be prosecuted, or you could be physically attacked.
"To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?" -- Kevin Alfred Strom, All America Must Know the Terror That is Upon Us, Aug 14, 1993 (source)
Now you may be wondering why all the hub-bub regarding the Jewish Holocaust™? If the alleged mass extermination of six million Jews is a myth, why is it so well protected? Why is the holocaust so much more important than other mass exterminations of human beings which equal or exceed the six million number? Why is it illegal to question it? The answer of course is that, were it not for Hitler and the holocaust, Israel would not exist, or at least it wouldn't have come into existence when it did. The Zionists needed the holocaust then and they need it to be recognized today because the alleged crimes of Hitler's Germany provide a massive amount of reparations and weapons for the Jewish state of Israel, as well as a tolerance for corrupt Jewish influence in all of our major institutions.
Exposing this knowledge is a triple-edged sword however. One problem is that the Zionist state of Israel needs the hate spewed by the anti-Semite because it keeps the holocaust money machine turning.
"It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of property. [...] The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies." -- Theodore Herzl, the 'godfather of Zionism', in The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl (source)
Another problem is that assimilating the truth of this historical event can cause the dimwitted to become Jew-haters and this is a problem because not all Jews fit into the same basket. As i mentioned earlier, several Jews are holocaust and historical revisionists and/or anti-Zionists. Lastly, nearly all Jews who believe the myth do so only because they have been subjected to the same lies as the rest of us for their entire lives.
Auschwitz "gas chamber" chemical analysis was performed by several people, including Fred Leuchter, Germar Rudolf and the Polish authorities. Following is some information about Rudolf from the CODOH website:
Germar Rudolf was born on October 29, 1964, in Limburg, Germany. He studied chemistry at Bonn University, where he graduated in 1989 as a Diplom-Chemist, which is comparable to a U.S. PhD degree. From 1990-1993 he prepared a German PhD thesis at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in conjunction with the University of Stuttgart, Germany. Parallel to this and in his spare time, Rudolf prepared an expert report on chemical and technical questions of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, The Rudolf Report. He conclude in it that "the alleged facilities for mass extermination at Auschwitz and Birkenau were not suited for the purpose as claimed." As a result he had to endure severe measures of persecution in subsequent years. Hence he went into British exile, where he started the small revisionist outlet Castle Hill Publishers. When Germany asked Britain to extradite Rudolf in 1999, he fled to the U.S.. There he applied for political asylum, expanded his publishing activities, and in 2004 married a U.S. citizen. In 2005, the U.S. recognized Rudolf's marriage as valid and seconds later arrested and subsequently deported him back to Germany, where he was put in prison for 44 months for his scholarly writings. Some of the writings he got punished for had been published while Rudolf resided in the U.S., where his activities were and are perfectly legal. Since not a criminal under U.S. law, he managed to immigrate permanently to the U.S. in 2011, where he rejoined his U.S. citizen wife and daughter. He now resides in southeastern Pennsylvania with his wife and three children.
The catalyst for this article was discussions i had with two intelligent people who argue that man never set foot on the Moon. One has serious doubts and the other rejects the idea completely and it is the latter which has an extensive background in aerospace.
These recent discussions were certainly not my introduction into such claims however as i looked into this many moons ago (pun intended). There are many people who disbelieve that man walked on the Moon, some very smart and some just plain stupid, and the number seems to be growing. Smart people are just as easily fooled as is the dummy however.
If you've read some of the content on this website, especially in the history section, you'll know my beliefs are not main stream. I'm not sure they ever were. I enjoy finding fault with a given narrative and following the trail of breadcrumbs to a sound, or at least a logical conclusion. If you accused me of being a conspiracy theorist, i stand unapologetically guilty, however i'm also a conspiracy 'factist', if you will. I'm interested in truth, not confirming my own biases. Truth is not always easily discovered, however in this case there is a lot of evidence readily available and, in the end, that which is presented by the debunkers fails miserably when measured against the official claim.
My questioning of mainstream narratives began at an early age and when i delved into the validity of the Apollo Moon landings, i would not have been surprised in the least had the evidence led me to conclude that the whole thing was a big fat hoax as many believe. Matter of fact, i would have preferred such a result because it would have been yet another well deserved nail in the coffin of mainstream government bullshit.
I cannot prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that man set foot on the Moon. I wasn't there and i don't have physical access to the evidence. I've also learned to be critical of any claims i can't vet for myself, however there is indeed a wealth of evidence that strongly suggests we did, in fact, walk on the Moon and i'll lay out a tiny fraction of that evidence here. Yes, images, communications, telemetry and other evidence can be forged, however this overlooks the massive heap of evidence to the contrary as well as simple logic and reasoning. Simply put, the evidence which i've considered that the debunkers bring to the table ranges from completely retarded to inconclusive and much of it resides on the retarded end of the scale.
CLAIM: The entire Apollo 11 Moon landing was filmed using a miniature section model of the Moon hung upside down on a ceiling. ANSWER: I don't know about this particular debunker, but personally i haven't yet been able to a) miniaturize myself to fit the scale of a model, b), managed to walk on my ceiling, or c), managed to kick up dust and drop things and have them fall up. Lastly, the morons who assembled the American Moon "documentary" in question rely on discussions about potential pitfalls that arose very early during the planning stages of the space program when a great deal of questions had no concrete answers, as though nothing further could be learned and nothing could possibly be changed during subsequent research and development.
CLAIM: Wikileaks released video showing the moon landing was shot in a studio. ANSWER: Wikileaks never published any such information. The video is a compilation which includes behind the scenes footage from the filming of Capricorn 1 (1970) and actual footage of the Apollo 11 Moon landing. Even the "fact checking" website Snopes, founded by a criminal and staffed by prostitutes, actually gets this one right.
CLAIM: The Apollo missions never left Earth orbit. ANSWER: If that was the case then there should be evidence of sightings of the Command Module as it orbited Earth in the night sky due to light from the Sun reflecting off of it as is the case with satellites.
CLAIM: There can be no combustion in a vacuum. ANSWER: Fuels that contain or produce oxygen as they burn will burn in an oxygen deprived environment.
CLAIM: There is nothing in a vacuum for a rocket engine to push against. ANSWER: Every reaction creates and equal and opposite reaction, even in a vacuum.
CLAIM: The intense radiation level of Earths Van Allen Belts were not survivable by a human given the minimal protection offered by the craft. ANSWER: While "minimal" is an exaggeration, the claim is not entirely without merit. That aside, the level of radiation doesn't matter if you pass through the belts quickly enough. From Apollo Rocketed Through the Van Allen Belts | Popular Science:
By February of 1964, NASA was confident that Apollo crews would be passing through the belts fast enough that the spacecraft’s skin and all the instrumentation lining the walls would be enough protection.
To monitor radiation exposure during the flights, Apollo crews carried dosimeters on board their spacecraft and on their persons. And these readings confirmed NASA had made a good choice. At the end of the program, the agency determined that its astronauts had avoided the large radiation doses many feared would ground flights to the Moon. Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials.
CLAIM: There's no blast crater or radial dispersion of material under the Lunar Excursion Module which would have resulted from its engine. ANSWER: The Moon is a rock; gravity is 1/6th that of Earth so not as much thrust is required to land as would be necessary on Earth; in some instances the engine was apparently shut down just prior to the Lunar Module contacting the surface in order to avoid debris from damaging it; dispersion of the dust can be seen in some photographs captured from the Command Module, the Japanese Space Agency Selene probe, the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe, all of which would have to be co-conspirators.
CLAIM: The Lunar Module was too fragile to withstand space travel. ANSWER: This claim often seems to hinge on a "thin foil" being the only barrier to space in parts of the Lunar Module which is a gross exaggeration. This argument is then used to insinuate that the entire 36,000 lb. machine was fragile.
CLAIM: Lack of a radial disbursement of material under the Lunar Modules engine nozzle cannot be explained by shutting down the engine on the Lunar Module before touchdown since this would have risked damaging the fragile vehicle. ANSWER: The Lunar Module had some serious shock absorption capability with the primary struts having 32 in. of compression travel; the Lunar Module could sustain a fall of approximately 40 feet; the Lunar Module weighed approximately 36,000 lbs. on Earth, but far less on the Moon; considering its Earth weight alone, much less the added load and tremendous vibration it needed to withstand during the Apollo launch, the Lunar Module was obviously not the flimsy contraption the debunkers would have us believe.
CLAIM: Stanly Kubrick confessed to filming the Apollo 11 Moon sequence. ANSWER:"In a statement released through a spokesperson, the [Kubrick] family made it clear the film published on YouTube was a complete hoax, using an actor who was purporting to be the Clockwork Orange film director." (source)
CLAIM: The U.S. flag is blowing in the wind on the "Moon". ANSWER: Momentum happens in a vacuum too when the pole to which the flag is attached is adjusted. And if the Apollo 11 mission was filmed in a studio, well, there's no wind there either. Lastly, this assumes those perpetrating the hoax were too stupid to recognize such a blatantly obvious oversight.
CLAIM: There's a photo of a Coke can on the Moon. ANSWER: See the last part of the answer above. There was plenty of other equipment left on the Moon however as is evidenced in photographs captured by probes sent by several countries, as well as those captured by the Apollo Command Module, all of which the debunkers avoid. Such equipment includes 70+ vehicles, vehicle tracks, sensors, transmitters, seismometers, reflectors, Lunar Modules, payload transport pallets, solar panels, cameras, foot prints, and the Apollo 11 service module which may still be orbiting the Moon, all of which would have to be forgeries by several countries, all of which would have had to be co-conspirators. Lastly, forging this much evidence is utterly unnecessary as it only increases the risk that the hoax would be exposed.
CLAIM: Converging shadows prove that the light source was much closer to the areas being photographed than the Sun would have been, therefore the Moon photography was performed in a studio. ANSWER: Easily debunked using a light bulb and 2 fingers to create shadows on a table. Shadows can indeed converge, especially when they are produced by irregularly shaped objects resting on an irregular surface, and this is not dependent on the distance of the light source. There is also the matter of perspective.
CLAIM: There are no stars in the photographs allegedly taken from the Moon. ANSWER: There's no stars because the camera exposure was set to account for the bright, highly reflective surface of the Moon. Ever notice how many fewer stars you can see with the naked eye during a full Moon? Now imagine the light from the Sun as seen on the Moon with no atmosphere in between.
CLAIM: There are no stars in photographs taken from the Moon because it would have been impossible to create an accurate representation of the visible universe. ANSWER: They couldn't have used enlarged photographs of the universe as a backdrop? Or plotted stars on a backdrop from photographs? Also see the above answer.
CLAIM: The astronauts said they didn't see any stars. ANSWER: While some of the Apollo astronauts did in fact state they didn't recall seeing any stars from specific perspectives, some also stated that they could see stars when standing in the shadow of the Lunar Module, when orbiting the back side of the Moon, or when looking through optical devices. Also the astronauts had darkened visors to protect their eyes during the Moon walks. Also see the above answers.
CLAIM: The astronauts are too well lit in photographs when they were in shade. ANSWER: The Moon is highly reflective; lightening of darker areas can be accomplished in the darkroom (known as "dodging").
CLAIM: Photographs taken by astronauts on the Moon are too well composed considering there was no viewfinder on their cameras. ANSWER: Have you seen all of them? Did cropping photographs suddenly become impossible post Moon landing? Did they not practice beforehand? Is it necessary to forge 8,000+ photographs in order to perpetrate a hoax?
CLAIM: The camera crosshairs in photographs on the "Moon" are behind certain objects. ANSWER: While that indeed appears to be the case in some of the photographs, it isn't. The crosshairs were on a glass plate in the camera so they could not possibly be behind anything in front of the camera, and if it is posited that the Hasselblad cameras never existed, then a sheet of glass or a filter with the crosshairs on it could be placed in front of the camera lens, or they could be added when printing the photographs. In either case the crosshairs can never be behind anything. The reason the crosshairs appear to be behind certain objects in some of the photographs is because they are washed out when they intersect a bright object, such as a space suit, and, in fact, the crosshairs can be seen in some of the photographs used by the debunkers.
CLAIM: Given the technical challenges it is extremely unlikely that 6 out of 7 Apollo missions could have met with success. ANSWER: This ignores all that happened prior to Apollo 11. The space program had many failures, including the loss of at least 3 astronauts. So did the automobile industry. Do we not learn from our mistakes? NASA had to be as certain as possible that, as Kennedy stated, we could land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth. The space program was a massive effort that, contrary to what some of the debunkers imply, wasn't thrown together over night by a bunch of idiots. All of the debunking videos i've seen feature clip after clip of NASA failures early in the space program while omitting mention of many of the successes. The aircraft industry had many more failures, yet planes are flying today because lessons were learned and changes were made. Furthermore, why fake 6 landings? Why not quit after 1 or 2? Again, the more fakery, the higher the chance of being exposed.
CLAIM: Some of the Apollo 11 astronauts acted strange upon return, as though they had been threatened to not disclose the hoax. ANSWER: This is another very thin claim, however assuming the astronauts actually did act strange upon return, i think this could possibly be due to having seen things they didn't expect, possibly on the way to the Moon or on their orbit around the dark side of the planet (there is some evidence of artificial structures on the dark side which is never seen from Earth). Another possible answer is their general state of fatigue after having endured such an intense and dangerous mission.
CLAIM: Given the complexity and technological limitations of the time, it would have been impossible for the Service Module to re-dock with the Command Module after leaving the Moon. ANSWER: This is the only potentially reasonable argument against the Apollo Moon landings that i've heard and, quite interestingly, this argument was made by a friend who spent decades in the aerospace industry, much of that working with missile systems apparently. The basis of the argument is that the docking, given the equipment and technology available at that time, including very limited computing power, would have made it impossible to perform such an incredibly complex, delicate and precise maneuver. I think this argument overlooks the human-in-the-loop factor however. While re-docking was certainly a highly complex operation, which is why it was practiced successfully during the Gemini program, i suspect the automated portion of it (computer controlled burn times, vectoring, etc.) would only have to place the Service Module in the proximity of the Command Module on approximately the same course and velocity after which the pilot could take control and do what the computers may have been incapable of.
One of the most obvious shortcomings of the debunkers is that they conveniently ignore the mountainous body of convincing evidence which contradict their claims, including that provided by countries and organizations other than NASA which orbited the moon and photographed some of the equipment left there during the Apollo program. Such evidence is the result of the work of approximately 400,000 people over a ten year period. One cannot possibly ignore this evidence and proclaim to be objective and when both bodies of evidence are weighed, it is blatantly obvious on which side the credibility lies.
The world is run by self-serving psychopathic tyrants (the dwindling number of those who remain ignorant of this fact can begin their education at the Corbett Report).
Such men have no interest whatsoever in the betterment of mankind or the welfare of the Earth, and so i have often wondered why they would allow the mass proliferation of a tool, the internet, that could be used against them. Were they incapable of predicting the result when the people of the world were given access to their plans and an opportunity to unite in protest? Were they really that stupid?
The answer is, of course they were able to predict the outcome. The internet is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
As the digital revolution was underway in the mid-nineties, research departments at the CIA and NSA were developing programs to predict the usefulness of the world wide web as a tool for capturing what they dubbed “birds of a feather” formations. That's when flocks of sparrows make sudden movements together in rhythmical patterns.
They were particularly interested in how these principles would influence the way that people would eventually move together on the burgeoning internet: Would groups and communities move together in the same way as ‘birds of a feather, so that they could be tracked in an organised way? And if their movements could be indexed and recorded, could they be identified later by their digital fingerprints?
To answer these questions, the CIA and NSA established a series of initiatives called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) to directly fund tech entrepreneurs through an inter-university disbursement program. Naming their first unclassified briefing for computer scientists ‘birds of a feather,’ which took place in San Jose in the spring of 1995.
Amongst the first grants provided by the MDDS program to capture the ‘birds of a feather’ theory towards building a massive digital library and indexing system - using the internet as its backbone - were dispersed to two Stanford University PHD’s, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who were making significant headways in the development of web-page ranking technology that would track user movements online.
As David Galula, a French commander who was an expert in counterinsurgency warfare during the Algerian War, emphasised:
“In any situation, whatever the cause, there will be an active minority for the cause, a neutral majority, and an active minority against the cause. The technique of power consists in relying on the favourable minority in order to rally the neutral majority and to neutralise or eliminate the hostile minority.”
Overtime, however, the intelligence state lost touch with reality, as the focus of its counterinsurgency programs shifted from foreign to domestic populations, from national security risks to ordinary citizens. Particularly in the wake of 9/11, when the NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ, began mapping out the Internet.
Thanks to Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013, we now know that the NSA were collecting 200 billion pieces of data every month, including the cell phone records, emails, web searches and live chats of more than 200 million ordinary Americans. This was extracted from the world's largest internet companies via a lesser-known, data mining program called Prism.
There’s another name for this, and its total information awareness. The highest attainment of a paranoid state seeking absolute control over its population.
Dustin Broadbery is an investigative journalist and blogger.
He previously chatted to me about the anatomy of a cult. This time, he chatted to me about the subversive origins of the internet, including the central and military intelligence links to Facebook, Siri, and a whole lot more.
It’s all a bit creepy and can make one somewhat paranoid about the promises of online privacy.
The military industrial complex is returning to its roots as the CIA turns to big tech to maintain control and rebuild the war economy.
The vaunted “17 intelligence agencies” that comprise the U.S. intel community will be sharing a network of private-sector cloud computing service providers which includes Microsoft, Google, Oracle, IBM, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) as part of a 15-year contract said to be worth tens of billions of dollars.
Email exchanges between National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith Alexander and Google executives Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt suggest a far cozier working relationship between some tech firms and the U.S. government than was implied by Silicon Valley brass after last year’s revelations about NSA spying.
Disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden about the agency’s vast capability for spying on Americans’ electronic communications prompted a number of tech executives whose firms cooperated with the government to insist they had done so only when compelled by a court of law.
But Al Jazeera has obtained two sets of email communications dating from a year before Snowden became a household name that suggest not all cooperation was under pressure.