A Direct Challenge To The WaterHeads At CounterKnowledge And Any Dishonest Intellectuals

I had an epiphany this morning.

This was courtesy of, indirectly, David McGowan. Thanks, pal.

A fellow by the name of Lyle Burkhead has made the breakthrough I should have had ages ago...but sometimes one just needs to come at things from a different perspective.

So...what exactly is it that has me in such a lather? It is this: As of this day, Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, there stands NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that there were ever gas chambers in existence during World War 2 for the express purpose of murder.

NONE.

Do we have here just another dull-witted "denial" of the Holocaust?

My answer here will be an emphatic NO. If you've ever read my past material on this blog, you will see that I dispute the facts of the Holocaust; indeed, many aspects of the "official" story have been disproven - for example, Anne Frank's diary; the shrunken heads, the lampshades and soap made from Jews; Benjamin Wilkorminski's story; Misha DeFonseca/Monique van der Wal's tale of being raised by wolves, Herman Rosenblat's tale of the "girl with an orange"; I could go on and on...but the biggest aspect of this tale involves the presence and/or feasibility of the "gas chambers", in which the majority of the "six million" Jews purportedly lost their lives.

A number of researchers have been to these facilities, and their various researches have determined that the edifices could in no way serve as homicidal gas chambers. the buildings were not airtight; the doors were not secure; and, most importantly, they did not test positive for the presence of residues that would be present if the rooms were used as gas chambers. Just perform a search, and this information will become apparent.

The paper discusses the chicanery involved in convincing you and I of the "certainty" of this aspect of the Holocaust story. Where I failed to notice the flim-flammery of the story was because of the skill in which Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, works his semantics. he goes on and on about proving the science of the story, and then proceeds to present NOT ONE WHIT OF PROOF.

As a September 11th scholar, this should have made itself apparent, and here's my correlation: how does one account for this aspect of the Holocaust not being required to adhere to the normal standard of proof, much like how on September 11th, 2001, we were fed a tale in which standard practices were ignored, obfuscated and outright dismissed?

We were told that "jet fuel" and "the impacts of the planes" contributed to the destruction of WTC Buildings 1 & 2. Of course, no explanation is given as to why WTC Building 7 collapsed in much the same fashion as the others, where no plane impact was committed. Intercept practices were not performed as they had multiple times previously; other procedures were changed without justification; and, most glaring to my perception, none of these failures were punished; rather, whistleblowers were not afforded protection from reprisals; ridiculous cover stories were offered to explain away inconsistencies; yet those "explanations" served to discredit other established "aspects" of the events of September 11th, 2001.

The burden of proof is usually upon proving that some event did in fact occur; the fact remains that one cannot prove a negative. So, when a revisionist opines that the gas chamber story doesn't hold water, he is not bound to prove that the whole of the Holocaust did not occur; rather, that burden of proof is upon those who insist on going along with the story that these facilities did indeed exist, at the specific time period, for that express purpose. For some reason, we have been blinded into going along with  this logical fallacy.

I have seen the light...will you?