How did they get to Eric Hunt?

[Werd]

Eric has basically boiled it down to four main issues that he thinks revisionists are losing on.

The Auschwitz aerial photos, Babi Yar, (1), (2), and Krema II and the sonderkommando photo of Krema V.

[hermod]

Eric has basically boiled it down to four main issues that he thinks revisionists are losing on.

The Auschwitz aerial photos, Babi Yar, (1), (2), and Krema II and the sonderkommando photo of Krema V.

What's your point? That they didn't get to him? That Eric's stated arguments are compelling enough to explain his sudden turnaround??? A rather original point of view...

[Terboven]

My money is on bribery! A host of inducements could be offered by any number of wealthy jewish organizations!

[CWhite]

My money is on bribery! A host of inducements could be offered by any number of wealthy jewish organizations!

I would guess blackmail over bribery or other threats.

I'm guessing he was set up in some kind of money scheme. Hunt has been a shameless beggar his whole career. I think it was obvious to those who had a motive to go after him what his weakness was. And of course, as Hunt has just proven to everyone in the world, he is not a man of integrity or character. He was ripe and easy pickins.

That is why his "arguments" after flipping sides are so weak. Nobody in their right mind (of course that doesn't include Hunt) would flip unless and until they had more than what he has to offer. His so-called "evidence" is so weak, it's laughable.

[Werd]

There is a chance he genuinely believes what he is saying. That is my point. There is a history of threats and about faces that happened after said threats. Eric could in fact be another case of intimidation. But nobody knows for sure. That is my point.

[k0nsl]

I don't think anybody could've deducted that from having read your other post.
But thanks for explaining what you meant with that post on behalf of hermod's request. He wasn't the only one shaking his head

Best wishes,
-k0nsl

There is a chance he genuinely believes what he is saying. That is my point. There is a history of threats and about faces that happened after said threats. Eric could in fact be another case of intimidation. But nobody knows for sure. That is my point.

[Darkshine]

I just found out about the End of the Line, and I'm very, very confused. Eric Hunt's videos were revolutionary. Not only did they convince me, but they convinced my friend, who identifies as a Christian Republican, Judeophile. When I finally broke through his resistance, and got him to watch video 1 of Questioning the Holocaust, he no longer viewed me as insane. I'm so shocked by the reversal of Hunt's stance, but I'm even more confused by it. How did he suddenly turn against every point he proved? How is he claiming that no Jews were transited out of Treblinka, when he's spoken to survivors, on video, who say this out of their own mouths? Why did he not pull down his old videos, if he thinks they are false? And why did he not create a new video, filled with all his evidence that support mainstream views?

What he calls 'proof' in the "End of the Line", looks painfully like subjective conjecture. I can't even follow what he is trying to say. His proof is that he's asking a question that people can't answer? Does any of what he is claiming as evidence, make sense to anyone else?

[Hannover]

I just found out about the End of the Line, and I'm very, very confused. Eric Hunt's videos were revolutionary. Not only did they convince me, but they convinced my friend, who identifies as a Christian Republican, Judeophile. When I finally broke through his resistance, and got him to watch video 1 of Questioning the Holocaust, he no longer viewed me as insane. I'm so shocked by the reversal of Hunt's stance, but I'm even more confused by it. How did he suddenly turn against every point he proved? How is he claiming that no Jews were transited out of Treblinka, when he's spoken to survivors, on video, who say this out of their own mouths? Why did he not pull down his old videos, if he thinks they are false? And why did he not create a new video, filled with all his evidence that support mainstream views?

What he calls 'proof' in the "End of the Line", looks painfully like subjective conjecture. I can't even follow what he is trying to say. His proof is that he's asking a question that people can't answer? Does any of what he is claiming as evidence, make sense to anyone else?

You've highlighted the insurmountable problem for Eric & those that forced him to recant in the false hope that his saying 'Sorry, I didn't really mean it' will change the impact of his efforts.

The results revealed in his videos are not a casual opinion, conjecture; they are forensic science and rational observation.
No matter how much he claims to now accept a storyline which is scientifically impossible, he simply cannot. He has already demonstrated it's impossibility.
It's rather like someone who has circumnavigated the globe then saying 'the world is flat and you will fall off if you go too far'.

i.e.:
In one of Eric's videos he conclusively demonstrates that an alleged 900,000 'holocausted' Jews are not buried at Treblinka as is claimed.
That fact cannot be undone. The alleged 900,000 do not exist, as Eric demonstrated.

Why did Eric surrender? Simple, he was given an ultimatum. Recall he now lives in Europe, recall the consequences of free speech in much of Europe.
Obviously there are personal influences in Eric's life which may had an influence in his surrender.

His 'End of the Line' gives his game away. His points pure amateur hour farce which HE previously debunked.

recommended:

'Eric Hunt's own work has him trapped, hence he ignores it, resorts to childish desperation'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10975

Welcome, Hannover

We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

[flimflam]

The endless vilification of one of persons who has done the most in exposing the hoax really has to stop. It is slightly obscene to watch people endlessly criticize someone they have, de facto, prevented from responding,. It is unconscionable. This is not who 'we' are supposed to be.

I have mostly refrained from commenting on this issue for fear of being banned. If telling the truth gets me banned, so be it.

[Moderator]

I have mostly refrained from commenting on this issue for fear of being banned. If telling the truth gets me banned, so be it.

'Banned for telling the truth'? Seriously?
No strawmen, please
No one has been 'banned' from this forum who abides by our basic & honest guidelines, which they agree to when registering. No one.
BTW: Eric Hunt is registered here, he is not banned, he can post any time he wishes.
M1

guidelines:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=358

[Darkshine]

I haven't read anyone criticizing him. Everyone here is hypothesizing at Eric's bizarre behavior. And well they should. The exterminists are gleefully using this to undermine the whole revisionist movement, setting it back decades.

As far as the hypotheses go, I personally don't think the motive was money, and I'll tell you why. I think Eric is in the same position he details with Eichmann. He seems to be in a helpless position, where he can do nothing but cooperate. His hand seems forced, but he is giving us messages. As is standard with theses, a statement of intent is used in the first paragraph. What is his? "For over a decade I have devoted a great deal of my life to investigating what is known as “The Holocaust. I’ve endured 18 months imprisonment, overwhelming hardships, and live life as an outcast due to my activism as a Holocaust skeptic." He is clearly letting us know that what is to follow is related to his time in prison, living as an outcast, and experiencing hardships, all for his investigation of "what is known as the Holocaust". What is known. Not what is. This phrasing is deliberate. This would seem to be his message that he is under duress.

Like Eichmann, his only ability to really speak, seems to come from very obvious flaws in what he is purporting. He is clearly giving us messages in the fact that he has not removed his earlier videos. He has not created new ones with his new evidence and supposition. He has not gone against his earlier debunking by using concrete, forensic evidence. He uses 'evidence' like pointing out that no one took up the offer of a financial reward for anyone who can prove that a Jew was transported from Treblinka. Um, what? Did he not have videos with testimonials from several Jews that were transported from Treblinka? He uses meaningless pictures that show nothing, to let us know that, indeed, nothing happened at these camps. By his screaming lack of concrete evidence, he is showing that he does not believe what he is saying. He is sans passion and inspiration in what he is purporting. He has uncharacteristically made no effort at all to back up his new claims.

This is not a man who is getting paid. This is a man trying to let the world know he has no choice.

[Hannover]

Darkshine:

He is clearly giving us messages ...

Indeed, in his 'End of the Line', besides his bizarre arguments, the curious use of the woman who is being accosted is symbolic of his 'seizure' by the shysters who are enforcers for the desperate 'holocaust' Industry.
Borjastick & I have previously discussed his 'messages'. Eric's leaving crumb trails.


see:
'Eric Hunt rolls over?'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10950

- Hannover

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”.
- Arthur Schopenhauer

[hermod]

The theory that Eric Hunt is giving us messages is interesting. Good food for thought, Darkshine.

After such a radical change and lousy justification, you probably understand that we had to verify his identity, flimflam. Now his identity has been confirmed by his debate with Fritz Berg, I also think that he should be allowed to post on codoh through his new account if he wishes.

[Moderator]

I also think that he should be allowed to post on codoh through his new account if he wishes.

Eric Hunt has only one account here, he can use it any time he wishes.
He registered here on Dec. 06, 2015, he has posted here 185 times.
M1

[Kingfisher]

I also think that he should be allowed to post on codoh through his new account if he wishes.

Eric Hunt has only one account here, he can use it any time he wishes.
He registered here on Dec. 06, 2015, he has posted here 185 times.
M1

He claimed he could not access his old account and that he was not allowed a new one. Why not go out of your way to make it easy for him and call his bluff (if bluff it is)? I can see nothing but advantage in facilitating his coming here to defend his new position. If he then chooses not to, at least we will know where we, and he, stand.