David Brody, Romans in America, Beyond Pre-Columbian Silliness |493|

#21
Also, why I think the train wreck is in the middle ages, is when we would discuss on old SH, everyone's diggings and probings seemed to hit an f'ing WALL there.
Crusades, Black Death, STURCH taking over, printing press...
I felt like we couldn't go back beyond that point through most of the media available, except by reading between the lines or grokking the underlying theme.
All of the empires, colonization, conviction and conscription, war and death, immigration and relocation, orphans...
Took a bunch of treasure seekers digging up and exposing (and absconding with) all of these ancient sites over the last few centuries. The locals didn't even have a clue! Whether it was Egypt, South America, the US and Australia...
Those last two a big key and giveaway btw. Supposedly being the "newest" for Europe and Asia. History not going back that far. Well, the 1800s are a shady and circumspect time for lots of obfuscating and rewriting of the narrative. It's like people didn't care about TRUE history until recently. Just liked a good old Indiana Jones action adventure story. Cowboys versus Indians. Yee-haw.
 
#22
Here's a good tongue-in-cheek intro from someone MG covers on her channel.
I'm also WAY intrigued by World's fairs, expositions, exhibitions, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
 

Alex

Administrator
#24
Sadly, it's questions over answers. Fringe and "conspiracy theorists"...
It used to be the discussions with certain individuals on stolenhistory.org before it crashed and was hijacked last year. One of the less open-minded members started stolenhistory.net in the interim before it started up, but heavily mediated and censored people, so I never got involved.
The same stuff was originally inspired by New Earth and Flat Earth British channels on YT, but they were really out there in speculation. Uninformed. So "mud flood" (poor label, reminds me of "mudbloods" in HP) and "Tartaria" (really Tataria, a blanket term like "Moors" by Europeans) took the spotlight.
That stuff spawned Michelle Gibson (who digs up a lot, but still reaches a bit too much), Jon Levi (who reaches a LOT), Wooden Nickels (who pulled back a bit in his reaching, but has a pretty wild sense of humor), Conspiracy-R-Us (a bit more balanced, great scholarship like MG), and Auto-Didactic (who digs through lots of old books online, but reaches a bit too much).
They all have different angles and scholarship, spend a lot more time online digging through shit than I do, so I mostly appreciate the photos or old documents. A few I can turn down the volume and not have to listen the whole time.
MOSTLY, all of these people have exposed that there IS stuff missing from the narrative, I have my own ideas.
Also like Peter Moon and Sky Books for a good mix of "truth" and "fiction".
My idea? An f'd up system that desperately tries to maintain control through cataclysms, upheavals, etcetera, and if everyone knew the truth of this perpetuated enslavement and how it could all go away in a moment, they wouldn't want to be bitches and pump for the man anymore.
Pretty simple, actually.
thx. I guess I turned a blind eye to a lot of the fringe conspiracy craziness until now. I was recently on alex stein's show conspiracy castle and he was really pumping the flat earth stuff. he's a smart guy... how does he get himself in this mind space? similarly I was on jeffrey daugherty's show indoctrinate yourself. again, smart guy, and a brilliant deconstruction of the christian indoctrination thing, but then I come to find out he's somewhat of a holocaust denier. I mean, beyond the morality affront that comes with being an apologist for such evil, there's the wacky denial of history... thousands of living witnesses. it's just insane.

Then again, is it less insane than covid, or LHO lone nut, or 9-11?
 
#25
thx. I guess I turned a blind eye to a lot of the fringe conspiracy craziness until now. I was recently on alex stein's show conspiracy castle and he was really pumping the flat earth stuff. he's a smart guy... how does he get himself in this mind space? similarly I was on jeffrey daugherty's show indoctrinate yourself. again, smart guy, and a brilliant deconstruction of the christian indoctrination thing, but then I come to find out he's somewhat of a holocaust denier. I mean, beyond the morality affront that comes with being an apologist for such evil, there's the wacky denial of history... thousands of living witnesses. it's just insane.

Then again, is it less insane than covid, or LHO lone nut, or 9-11?
Yeah, honestly I never considered FE as valid, although expanding earth and "hollow" or inner earth speak to me.
Even when the "C" dropped, I refrained from speculation as the thread on SH exploded and had 1000s of comments and became multiple threads and we feared it would be the end of the website. Only peeps I listened to were Cowan and related and the 5G thing because our bodies can't absorb water and stay hydrated. If it reaches 60, we won't be able to breathe.
Michelle Gibson is a bit skewed that it was all "Moors", but being exposed to guests of yours and Al on FB, I think it was Templars AND Moors trying to create a "New Atlantis" out from under the rule of the STURCH.
And, sort of like Tataria and the US South, it was a confederacy of a bunch of different peoples. "Civil war" was a cover to track down and wipe out lingering enclaves of that which remained after the cataclysms of the late 1700s and early 1800s. Volcanoes, earthquakes, and floods had decimated people all over the place.
 
#26
Sorry, (too) late to the show and discussion, still found it interesting and pretty simple and straight forward regarding the pure (archeological and other) facts of what Brody (and others) present.
Unfortunately usually then-with this topic as with pretty any other-the mess starts of course, instead of the ideas remaining open and skeptical in the true -ever more inquiry-sense, it all descends into a stalemate of overreaching, rigid opinions/ conclusions and infighting, namecalling....luckily Brody himself does little of that, which makes his theories interesting I think.

thx. I guess I turned a blind eye to a lot of the fringe conspiracy craziness until now. I was recently on alex stein's show conspiracy castle and he was really pumping the flat earth stuff. he's a smart guy... how does he get himself in this mind space? similarly I was on jeffrey daugherty's show indoctrinate yourself. again, smart guy, and a brilliant deconstruction of the christian indoctrination thing, but then I come to find out he's somewhat of a holocaust denier. I mean, beyond the morality affront that comes with being an apologist for such evil, there's the wacky denial of history... thousands of living witnesses. it's just insane.

Then again, is it less insane than covid, or LHO lone nut, or 9-11?
So, "Holocaust Denier" (amongst all the other mentioned topics) is where your "Crazy Line"-Conclusion goes?
Would you say you accurately know -purely factually- what those you label as such actually say/inquire before having reached such (If)?
"Thousands of living witnesses"- is a valid point, fact. But I wonder if you are then equally familiar with just the data the other ("denial") side presents regarding exactly those witnesses?
Not a trick question, I am really just unsure/interested what your (seemingly strong?) opinion is based on, knowledge/fair hearing of both sides or biased listening to only one?
Interestingly enough "Holocaust Deniers" and "Climate Change Deniers" (add any other "denial"...) are very often mentioned in the same breath and in the public arena treated exactly similar (though sofar only the forementioned actually legally banned and imprisoned from/for investigating), as the epitomy of wackos, with every attempt of polemic ad-hominem attacks instead of simple non-emotional fact-based discussion/investigation and its a f-ing disgrace in my opinion.
Maybe they are all wacky or none (I personally am not sure yet about either H-deniers or CC-deniers..) totally regardless, something is really sick in a society if science/open inquiry is legally shut down or emotionally shouted down.
Just like D.Brody was/still is considered a wacko in the mainstream history field...What is wrong with us?
 

Alex

Administrator
#27
So, "Holocaust Denier" (amongst all the other mentioned topics) is where your "Crazy Line"-Conclusion goes?
Would you say you accurately know -purely factually- what those you label as such actually say/inquire before having reached such (If)?
my first brush with the holocaust denier crowd was with jan irwin. as you may know he's done a lot of excellent research on a whole bunch of different alt-media topic including the gloria steinem thing, the gordon wasson thing, the deadhead thing... and other stuff. so I entered into an email exchange in order to invite him on the show. he started hitting me with the holocaust stuff. here's what I said that sent him into a rage:

========

The big stuff... i.e. Nazi plans (and implementation) for the systematic, deliberate, physical annihilation of the European Jews remains unchallenged. Have you seen the Wannsee Conference documents ( http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005477)?

I find the Nazi-fication of the US a more interesting topic. I had a chance to interview Jim Marrs re, Rise of the Fourth Reich... chilling.

Best,
Alex

At some still undetermined time in 1941, Hitler authorized this European-wide scheme for mass murder. Heydrich convened the Wannsee Conference (1) to inform and secure support from government ministries and other interested agencies relevant to the implementation of the “Final Solution,” and (2) to disclose to the participants that Hitler himself had tasked Heydrich and the RSHA with coordinating the operation. The men at the table did not deliberate whether such a plan should be undertaken, but instead discussed the implementation of a policy decision that had already been made at the highest level of the Nazi regime.

====
 

Alex

Administrator
#28
re witnesses:

==
https://blog.fold3.com/april-4-1945-the-liberation-of-ohrdruf/

Don Timmer, an 18-year-old private in the 89th Infantry Division described his experience. “We drove in and between the gate and the barracks were 30 dead…the blood still wet from departing German guards.” Bodies were piled in a shed and others partially incinerated on pyres. Timmer had taken German in high school and acted as an interpreter as prisoners shared tales of unspeakable horror. General George S. Patton arrived at Ohrdruf and was so sickened by what he saw that he threw up. General Dwight D. Eisenhower flew from Belgium to witness the carnage firsthand. According to Timmer, “Even Ike looked pale, and he wasn’t a pale guy.”
The sights and smells of the camp left indelible marks on the soldiers who were there. I know, because my grandfather LaMar Norton was one of the liberators and his experiences were so difficult to share, that most of the family wasn’t aware of this remarkable fact. He was unable to talk about the war without his eyes brimming with tears. LaMar served in the Fourth Armoured Division, Third Army, Company C, during the Battle of the Bulge. He suffered from PTSD after the war and was known to duck and cover during a clap of thunder or when a balloon popped. We knew he’d seen atrocities, but he never shared the details, and everyone learned not to ask. He passed away in 1996 leaving us with unanswered questions.
 
#29
my first brush with the holocaust denier crowd was with jan irwin. as you may know he's done a lot of excellent research on a whole bunch of different alt-media topic including the gloria steinem thing, the gordon wasson thing, the deadhead thing... and other stuff. so I entered into an email exchange in order to invite him on the show. he started hitting me with the holocaust stuff. here's what I said that sent him into a rage:

========

The big stuff... i.e. Nazi plans (and implementation) for the systematic, deliberate, physical annihilation of the European Jews remains unchallenged. Have you seen the Wannsee Conference documents ( http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005477)?

I find the Nazi-fication of the US a more interesting topic. I had a chance to interview Jim Marrs re, Rise of the Fourth Reich... chilling.

Best,
Alex

At some still undetermined time in 1941, Hitler authorized this European-wide scheme for mass murder. Heydrich convened the Wannsee Conference (1) to inform and secure support from government ministries and other interested agencies relevant to the implementation of the “Final Solution,” and (2) to disclose to the participants that Hitler himself had tasked Heydrich and the RSHA with coordinating the operation. The men at the table did not deliberate whether such a plan should be undertaken, but instead discussed the implementation of a policy decision that had already been made at the highest level of the Nazi regime.

====
Thanks for responding.
(And btw in general- thank you for all your long time freely shared work with the podcast, long time listener here, thousands-not kidding- hours of tractor driving and on-field weeding while listening to Skeptiko.... great work man!)
But that was exactly not my question. It was asking about the (grammatical) subject, not the object.

I like very much your ideas of level (0-)1,2 and 3-discussions and am very much interested in the higher spectrum if possible.
My main asking condensed were these 2 ones I guess:

1.- Would you say your opinion/conclusion is
a) strongly made up about the topic or
b) still inquiring/interested?
2. (If 1.a is the case)"Would you say you accurately know -purely factually- what those you label as such actually say/inquire before having reached such (If)"?
Again, sorry if that maybe sounds like meant polemically or rhetorically, it is not.

Thanks for sharing your exchange with Jan Irvin (have to admit to my shame hadn`t heard of him before and first assuming it was a misspelling of David Irving...). But what does "hitting with Holocaust stuff" mean practically, what data/sources (not opinions) offered/received and time have you spent investigating those then (no details. mean just ex. hours 1-10, 10 plus, scholarly books read 1-5, 5 plus...?)?
Again, the links you offer (to the Holocaust Encyclopedia and Blog) are entirely fair, but as mentioned last post and above I am asking if you also on the other hand then would be able to cite links and scholarly (preferably not 2nd-3rd hand) articles that fairly present the other view (in case of document-interpretations, the differing ones, in case of witnesses, other contradicting ones maybe...)?

As said I myself am not really sure yet what to think about that specific topic either side, but isnt that the point then involuntarily maybe, my opinion should not matter shit anyway. What does is whenever uttering strong opinions about any specific topic better the f... factually both-sides knowing what one is talking about?
Should "researchers" like f.ex. Michael Shermer, Sam Harris and Steven Novella who have obviously very strong opinions about NDE not be at least able to name just the most basic scholarly researchers (like Van Lommel, Long, Greyson...) and simply most basic factually what their scientific research results showed? Should those offering strong ones regarding "Holocaust Deniers" equally not at least be able to name/represent factually 3 or more scholarly authorities (with maybe as fun-nobrainer-fact/challenge at least 2 of which of jewish ethnicity..?) and their scientific research results maybe as well? "Climate Activists" be able to name/present fairly Curry, Ball..., roman-times historians know about Brody....?

Personally felt so shocked/embarassed when someone some years ago asked me the question "Ever read a book from the german(/japanese) contradicting side of view of events?" and answer was, after 35 plus -oh so intellectual.., years, not only No, but I realized I never even had gotten the idea there could be such....
Again, left aside whether that side is correct (or the mainstream), isn`t it a bit peculiar how one sided that whole period seems to have been presented (history/media/ entertainent industry ...)- if one looks at the whole thing bit from a detached overview for a second-and in case that is so, is that because there a) is no other side to the events/history or b) the other side is left out you think?
 

Alex

Administrator
#31
Sorry, (too) late to the show and discussion, still found it interesting and pretty simple and straight forward regarding the pure (archeological and other) facts of what Brody (and others) present.
Unfortunately usually then-with this topic as with pretty any other-the mess starts of course, instead of the ideas remaining open and skeptical in the true -ever more inquiry-sense, it all descends into a stalemate of overreaching, rigid opinions/ conclusions and infighting, namecalling....luckily Brody himself does little of that, which makes his theories interesting I think.



So, "Holocaust Denier" (amongst all the other mentioned topics) is where your "Crazy Line"-Conclusion goes?
Would you say you accurately know -purely factually- what those you label as such actually say/inquire before having reached such (If)?
"Thousands of living witnesses"- is a valid point, fact. But I wonder if you are then equally familiar with just the data the other ("denial") side presents regarding exactly those witnesses?
Not a trick question, I am really just unsure/interested what your (seemingly strong?) opinion is based on, knowledge/fair hearing of both sides or biased listening to only one?
Interestingly enough "Holocaust Deniers" and "Climate Change Deniers" (add any other "denial"...) are very often mentioned in the same breath and in the public arena treated exactly similar (though sofar only the forementioned actually legally banned and imprisoned from/for investigating), as the epitomy of wackos, with every attempt of polemic ad-hominem attacks instead of simple non-emotional fact-based discussion/investigation and its a f-ing disgrace in my opinion.
Maybe they are all wacky or none (I personally am not sure yet about either H-deniers or CC-deniers..) totally regardless, something is really sick in a society if science/open inquiry is legally shut down or emotionally shouted down.
Just like D.Brody was/still is considered a wacko in the mainstream history field...What is wrong with us?
thanks... this is awesome... definitely next level. can't respond to all of it but here's of stream of consciousness.

I am very thankful for the experience skeptiko has given me. the forum is a big part of it... as are interviews with some really great thinkers. equally or more important has been my encounters with those who are propped up and pushed forward as experts despite being willfully ignorant of stuff we would a assume they knew more about. and then the real kicker is interviews with folks who are in a position of influence but whose agenda seems to be to intentionally deceive and mislead and misinform ( richard wiseman always springs to mind but there's many more :))

Through all this I've developed a certain knack cutting thru BS and spotting the sinkholes that seem to crop up again and again. I'm not perfect, but being wrong sometimes is part of the fun.

So with regard to the holocaust denier stuff... let me digress here because you asked about jan irwin "hitting me with holocaust denier stuff" and it's kind of a good example of what I'm referring to. so when I pressed jan, the first thing he came back with was "that six million figure you hear all the time is bullshit." he then proceeded with a information dump to support his point. I responded with, "ok, but who gives a shit how far he got, hitler's plan was to exterminate every jew in europe." and this is when jan lost it... he lost it because he couldn't confine the crazy talk inside of his narrow little narrative.

I've seen this pattern repeated over and over again... consciousness is an illusion... materialism... nde is last gasp of a dying brain... mediums are scammers... over and over. these arguments depend on ignoring the facts / data / science in favor of a " let's agree to disagree" niceness.

So, I'm not sure I've really addressed question, but I would suggest that the best way to get there is to drill into and have you present what you think may be viable / interesting / possible within the holocaust alternative history realm... because I have absolutely no problem with folks digging into this topic. I don't have a very high opinion of religion and think the whole jewish thing is a real mess ( not to mention part of the christian psyop). so I don't have any "respect my religion" sensibilities. but evil is still fucking evil. the jewish holocaust was evil.
 
#32
Agreed, this is fun...and unfortunately extremely rare to have such a bit (hopefully) higher level discussions regarding this topic in my experience...
Yes, remember well the very entertaining R.Wiseman episode, but personally must say your joint psych-detective investigation with Ben Radford is my all time favorite regarding how people can manage to perfect the art of throwing the (unwanted) baby out with the bathwater by nitpicking at details and utterly ignoring the greater picture out of which they are taken out of context of..what was it again, the suspect or name was EASTER EUROPEAN and NOT POLISH!!...brilliant...

Though..we all do that i guess at times( hopefully not to such extreme degree as he, but worst are the subtle unconsciouss levels I guess/fear...)?

Point well taken and gladly can share the sources that I personally found worth looking into, but wonder if we could just for a moment longer look at the topic maybe from an opposit view than it usually is approached..(?), namely what its results/ phenomena around are?
One thing that has baffled me ever since looking a bit more into it is, that this one topic seems to be one utterly unique among all others there are in the entire history of mankind regarding the degree that sober discussions like the one we are having right now seem usually for some reason to be totally impossible to be had ...

1. on the personal level because it gets so emotionally out of hand immediately (applies to both sides I guess) one never gets past the first minutes before the name calling and all the rest of mayhem starts and

2. on the public level because any (mainstream) open discussion is supressed/condemned to a really astonishing degree.
Purely practically taken, all whose side has the right historical facts or not aside, it is the one and only historical topic/event of all time which in democratic countries has been banned under penal law from being discussed/investigated openly, correct?
I personally could not believe it when I first heard/read it, but according to my research it is factually the case that this exact dialogue we are having right now, simply carefully pondering the facts (without any conclusion or politics ever coming in)about the holocaust would already in Germany, France, Holland, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Canada and Australia lead to a criminal persecution of me and you and your podcast/channels being shut down.
Only reason we are (so far..) not is you are located in the US and I in Sweden which not yet have those laws.
Why is this topic so unbelievably emotionally loaded? What is this nearly cultish behaviour around it...WTF-free democratic countries by law forbidding to simply open mindedly investigate/discuss?

Again, all right or wrong aside for now, I just found this a peculiar overall picture and can so far not entirely wrap my head around it, I mean purely statistically speaking even with the highest mainstream death toll still Stalin and Mao greatly outnumber Hitler & Co, but there is none of this penal persecution or taboo around it, none of the hundreds of movies made and hundreds of remembrance museums worldwide for any of those, what am I missing here...?
Sure, I get that there are plenty of amazingly annoying narrow minded nutcases (mostly from the Neo-Nazi-crowd in my experience who unfortunately misuse the topic to saturate their hopelessly unrefined biases...) within the spectrum of people described as "Holocaust Deniers" /Revisionists, but that in my experience applies to pretty any human crowd (we already just mentioned a few among the skeptics crowd....), why this unique merciless persecution/defamation and over the top censoring?
 

Alex

Administrator
#33
Agreed, this is fun...and unfortunately extremely rare to have such a bit (hopefully) higher level discussions regarding this topic in my experience...
Yes, remember well the very entertaining R.Wiseman episode, but personally must say your joint psych-detective investigation with Ben Radford is my all time favorite regarding how people can manage to perfect the art of throwing the (unwanted) baby out with the bathwater by nitpicking at details and utterly ignoring the greater picture out of which they are taken out of context of..what was it again, the suspect or name was EASTER EUROPEAN and NOT POLISH!!...brilliant...
haha... nice one from the tie machine :)


1. on the personal level because it gets so emotionally out of hand immediately (applies to both sides I guess) one never gets past the first minutes before the name calling and all the rest of mayhem starts and
I totally get that one one hand, but I do think with there is a lot more tolerance (mostly in a good way... but sometimes over the top) within the "truther" community.

2. on the public level because any (mainstream) open discussion is supressed/condemned to a really astonishing degree.
agreed... impossible to separate zionist craziness... then again, we gots to or it's a non-starter.


Purely practically taken, all whose side has the right historical facts or not aside, it is the one and only historical topic/event of all time which in democratic countries has been banned under penal law from being discussed/investigated openly, correct?
I personally could not believe it when I first heard/read it, but according to my research it is factually the case that this exact dialogue we are having right now, simply carefully pondering the facts (without any conclusion or politics ever coming in)about the holocaust would already in Germany, France, Holland, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Canada and Australia lead to a criminal persecution of me and you and your podcast/channels being shut down.
sure... definitely crazy.

funny, but given the last 18 months it seems much more understandable... I mean, I don't think they ever dreamed of completely controlling speech to the extent they now do.


Only reason we are (so far..) not is you are located in the US and I in Sweden which not yet have those laws.
Why is this topic so unbelievably emotionally loaded? What is this nearly cultish behaviour around it...WTF-free democratic countries by law forbidding to simply open mindedly investigate/discuss?

I mean purely statistically speaking even with the highest mainstream death toll still Stalin and Mao greatly outnumber Hitler & Co, but there is none of this penal persecution or taboo around it, none of the hundreds of movies made and hundreds of remembrance museums worldwide for any of those, what am I missing here...?
not sure where this gets us in terms of holocaust deniers/revisers. again, I'm coming at this in response to Jan Irvin (and the like) who hint at, but never reveal, secret material that will totally change the way we look at the nazis and they're insanely evil plot to exterminate the jews of europe and create a master race.
 
#34
Whether it was 2 million Jews or 6 million Jews genocided (amongst millions of others killed including allied civilians and soldiers) the fact remains that Hitler and the Nazis were sick mass murdering animals. What is the debate about? The numbers in the genocide? Most of the time at least when these numbers are discussed is just cover for Hitler apologists if you ask me.
 
#37
Anyway, instead of people looking at past wars because they find it interesting, how about focussing on the now, like thousands of kids sitting in a dungeon somewhere, as we speak, waiting to be tortured raped and killed, by the likes mentioned as satanic ritual abuse cult members (imo) at
Dan Wilson thread post #369
Trump consciousness thread #5463 and #5466
You might also want to do a search for 'RAINS satanic abuse list' and dont believe the pedos, satanic abusers and their staff (whether knowingly or unknowingly) who try to attack the validity of that list with there shite psyops.
If you cant bear to even think about it, at least give a few coins to a charity that does.
 
Last edited:
#38
yeah, I get that... but OMG... the movie/doc is exactly the kind of wacky holocaust denier stuff I'm talking about. I mean, pls tell me:
"the untold story about the most reviled man in history. Adolf Hitler..."
Hi Alex
Covid denial is not actually illegal yet. Merely enquiring into this subject is.
Interesting stuff I guess - given that history is written by the victors
 
#39
I totally get that one one hand, but I do think with there is a lot more tolerance (mostly in a good way... but sometimes over the top) within the "truther" community.

Ok, Have to admit not being too versed in that community....

agreed... impossible to separate zionist craziness... then again, we gots to or it's a non-starter.

Agreed.


sure... definitely crazy.

funny, but given the last 18 months it seems much more understandable... I mean, I don't think they ever dreamed of completely controlling speech to the extent they now do.

Interesting yes, I personally was/am all but surprised by the recent censorship wave I have to admit since having seen (involuntarily) what they do to "Deniers" in that field there for many years (some stories are so bizarre it really is entertaining though, f. ex. in Germany the law is actually such that the lawyer of the denial-accused defendant is legally forbidden to introduce any evidence for the defence of her client, the mere filing of a motion can lend him/her in jail and the acceptance of such motion can lend the judge in jail...and one female- totally un-good german.....-lawyer actually tried that recently....guess where she is..)


not sure where this gets us in terms of holocaust deniers/revisers. again, I'm coming at this in response to Jan Irvin (and the like) who hint at, but never reveal, secret material that will totally change the way we look at the nazis and they're insanely evil plot to exterminate the jews of europe and create a master race.[/QUOTE]

Sorry late and probably long reply, no need to react to all, am just too lazy to shorten it down now....

I cant know what Irvin (others) said to reveal or not, but I wonder what you mean at all by "secret"?
Was/is actually precisely my main point, No, in my personal experience infact it is the exact other way round, there is absolute nothing "secret" about(except the forementioned constant condemnation and legal banning/ Google-Youtube etc censoring..)that material other than Longs, Van Lommels etc was/is to Sam Harris because he simply never bothered to look for it at all or condemned it all as "backwater" after just reading a few sentences.
Any 10 min Google search (and fair amount of sorting trash from quality of course, as with every topic) can potentially give anyone
instant access to actually thousands of precisely referenced documents, literature sources, material, scholarly (and other) articles from dozens of revisionist academics worldwide etc. Always been there (before Internet on paper), some since over 100years (WW1 included), not hard to find at all.
Have you actually done that and if not why not?
Again, not rhetorical, interests me, because I myself had absolutely not for over 35 years and I wonder if it is a common phenomenon..?
I personally never did because I had never imagined there being any "other side" to the story and thought all "deniers" were total wackos....
One can of course doubt and argue their presented data (and its quality of course-as in any other field-varies with the human doing the work) with other sources, arguments, disagree plenty, but should one not (as said before) at least be able to name purely factual some of their names and main data/arguments, before having any strong opinion about them?
It is Harris` responsibility to know about Long, not the other way round, right?
But/And of course always cuts both ways, people defending Holocaust revisionism better know about Hillberg, Wiesel, Dawidowicz... and what they present or shut up..

And in general it is a level playing field, right, no "extraordinary claims require.."-BS, what either side claims it has to proof according to rules of science and law, no more, no less, agreed? That the overwhelming majority believes in the established mainstream Holocaust-view does not grant any more special immunity from that level rule than in the case of the established mainstream materialistic science paradigm?!

But talking to people like Irvin (2.-3. hand source material at best..) is perhaps not too effective in general?
In my opinion the great quality of Skeptiko has always been to cut to the chase, primary sources/ investigators, for them usually being the most reliable ones, with every intermediary step all our human biases and flaws muddy-ing the data exponentially?

Was just trying to get/establish a more or less sound overview from which to dig into details and to hopefully not lose it among those later.
Bit of a weird situation/role in general, seems like me defending revisionists, which as said I am not, I just think that to get closer to the truth all sides must be given a fair hearing and representation.

Just wonder before (perhaps) getting dirty-
How deep/ far we wanna go with digging here since this is originally a thread about Brodys Romerica and I feel a bit bad for perhaps having derailed it, continue here or maybe create a separate one (saw you had one on Irvin and Holocaustdenial a while back, but shut it down in the end, did it go out of hand in the classic way there?)?
 
#40
Hi Alex
Covid denial is not actually illegal yet. Merely enquiring into this subject is.
Interesting stuff I guess - given that history is written by the victors
Good point, I really have wondered about the actual practical extent of that and by which means the victors usually do that...What do you think?
I mean during actual war it is understandibly important to need to rally the entire nation under one banner/narrative of simplified"we are the good guys and they the bad", but how to maintain such a narrative-potentially-in the ensuing after-peace period....is it just that there is generally really no interest in exploring deeper perhaps unpleasant sides of oneself (privately or collectively)?
 
Top