Caught in a lie already: Lipstadt-Irving "Denial” movie trailer

[Michael Hoffman]

Lipstadt-Irving "Denial” movie:
Caught in a lie before the movie even debuts

By Michael Hoffman
www.RevisionistHistory.org

In a note that follows this column, Hadding Scott proves the point that the movie "Denial" has, in at least one showcased instance, deliberately lied about what exactly was the challenge David Irving issued to Deborah Lipstadt in front of her college class — a key scene dramatically depicted in the movie and the trailer for it.

Since the entire movie — with no doubt many more lies in it — has not yet been seen by revisionists, it does not bode well for the film that in a mere three minute excerpt, already one egregious lie has been discovered within it.

Why would Hollywood film-makers proceed to retail a Big Lie such as Mr. Scott documents? It is because they are quite confident that millions of people the world over will never encounter the facts that prove it is a lie.

Revisionists command an audience in the tens of thousands, not the millions. Millions of movie-goers will see the lie presented in a slick and devout film starring a popular and respected Academy Award winning actress who reverently portrays "Holocaust" High Priestess Deborah Lipstadt , along with a supporting cast of A-list British actors. They will most likely believe its storyline on that basis.

Barring a miracle, our guess is that at most, perhaps 90,000 or 100,000 people around the world will at some point in time learn the revisionist truth about this "Denial" film's egregious deceptions. Even if it were twice that number however, it will be dwarfed by the tens of millions who will view it in theatres and at some point in the future, on television, and who will accept it as Hollywood Holy Writ.

Tinsel town's cinematic tricksters cynically lie about David Irving with the many millions in their audience in mind. They dismiss the tens of thousands of people who might possibly learn of their fraud. They lie predicated on that cynical equation. It is in the nature of the followers of Zionism and Holocaustianity to lie.

By the way, the movie will premier in North America on 9-11 in Toronto, Canada. Beginning Sept. 30 it will be released in select US cities until Oct. 21, when it will debut in movie theaters nationwide. Publicity will build throughout September and October. What can truth-seekers do to counter the film? Your suggestions are solicited. Our hard copy Revisionist History newsletter no. 86 will be devoted to exposing Lipstadt and will be published in mid-September. We hope you will join in distributing the newsletter outside theatres where "Denial" is shown. Internet activism alone is not enough.

We are also preparing another offensive in this great battle. When publicity for the film is cresting, we will debut an embarrassing surprise for Lipstadt on YouTube, the online video medium. Perhaps it will go viral and exceed the 100,000 or 200,000 viewers mark and begin to compete with the movie itself for the attention of millions. YouTube has that potential. We can turn the tables!

Meanwhile, complacency is being sown by the couch potatoes and do-nothings in our ranks who are declaring, “There's no such thing as bad publicity," and that David Irving will benefit from the “Denial” film. The Zionists however, have hazarded tens of millions of dollars on the opposite proposition, and they are not fools.

Moreover, if there is no such thing as bad publicity, why did Irving sue Lipstadt for libel in the first place? Answer: she publicized false claims about him that virtually destroyed his ability to sell his books to major publishing houses.

We should not permit the complacency of the Internet indolent, whose chief form of "activism" is to stare into a computer screen, to dull our awareness that there is much work to be done in countering and exposing “Denial.” It indeed represents an opportunity, but one that we must energetically and intelligently exploit. We pray that you will join us in this effort.

— Michael Hoffman ©2014

Hoffman is the author of The Great Holocaust Trial.

”DENIAL" MOVIE CAUGHT IN A LIE

By Hadding Scott
http://codoh.com/library/document/4105/

There is a crucial misrepresentation in the movie "Denial" about David Irving contra Deborah Lipstadt, where Irving is represented as saying: “... I’ve got a thousand dollars to give anyone who can show me a document that proves the Holocaust.”

In fact, David Irving never offered $1000 for any document that could “prove the Holocaust.”

In Atlanta on 11 November 1994, Deborah Lipstadt gave a presentation wherein, in addition to making derogatory statements about Mr. Irving without realizing that he was present, she claimed that she knew of “a blueprint of a gas chamber complete with the openings through which the S.S. tipped the pellets of cyanide.”

Mr. Irving stood up and issued to Professor Lipstadt the following challenge: “I have here a thousand dollars for you if you can produce to this audience, now or at any time in the future, this document about which you have just lied to them.”

By his own account, then, David Irving dared Deborah Lipstadt not to prove the "Holocaust," but only to show a particular document of which she had claimed knowledge -- which he knew she had misrepresented.

Irving on this occasion was relying on the work of Professor Robert Faurisson, who eighteen years earlier had acquired copies of the blueprints of what are supposed to be gas-chambers at Auschwitz, noting that they were in fact blueprints for mortuaries.

It is, thus, quite clear that David Irving has been misquoted in that trailer's excerpt from the movie, in a way that facilitates calling him a "Denier." It is contradicted by Irving’s own contemporary record, and, furthermore, it is simply not the kind of statement that David Irving has been known to make.

[flimflam]

" We hope you will join in distributing the newsletter outside theatres where "Denial" is shown. Internet activism alone is not enough."

This is exactly right. Picketing the movie is a great idea. Picketing holohoax museums is a better idea. But, picketing needs a small amount of organization. To my knowledge, we have absolutely no organization. By that I mean, I'm not going to go picket the movie by my lonesome, but if there was a group in my town, I'd join it.

Second, hopefully Irving will give a lecture that is filmed as a response to the movie. If not, there are any number of great Irving lectures that can be publicized to counter the movie. There is no more convincing 'revisionist' than David Irving, the guy is just an incredibly good speaker.

Third, I would not focus exclusively on the lies the movie tells about David Irving. Who cares? They have told a gazillion lies, to focus of the trivial lies they've told about Irving doesn't challenge the big lies. The lie to be countered is the hoax itself. Enough fighting an entirely rear guard action. I think a leaflet should make a strong effort to define and demonstrate the hoax in a way that the average joe might at least recognize as possibly having merit. To that end it should state that ...

1. there was no Nazi plan to extermniate the Jews or anyone else
2. the gas chamber are pure phantasmagoria and there is not a shred of physical evidence for them
3. the number of Jews were killed in the camps for being Jews is zero, and it is well documented that the Nazis aggressively investigated crime in the camps.

That is we have a supposed murder of six million people with no bodies and no murder weapons. The hoax rests on one big lie, the use of photos and film footage taken after the wars end, primarily in Belsen, where thousands of prisoners had died in a typhus epidemic, these photos have been and are now being shown the world over as proof of Nazis gassings. This is fully documented in this vid ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acPfPG457cw

[Hektor]

I'm also sure there are more misrepresentations in the movie. OK, the actors picked show a clear bias, but that still maybe excused with artistic license.

What I'm interested in would be establishing a flyer on the Denial Movie, the Irving-Lipstadt, Trial and the Holocaust.
Something that one could distribute in and around cinema's A5-format:
- Both sites printed, Black and White or Colour with possibility to print in Black and White.
- Basic Facts on the Movie
- Basic Facts on the Irving-Lipstadt Trial
- Basic Facts on Holocaust Revisionism
- Basic Facts on Psychological Warfare
- Basic Facts on the Holocaust Industry.
- Link to a special web site Dedicated to the subject e.g.: http://www.DenialMovieReview.com
Every single word should be verifiable as possible (primary source documents).

Socalled: "Holocaust Denial" isn't an offense in South Africa. In fact, the staff at the cinema may even be helpful in distributing the flyers

I presume I know at least two cinemas that will show this movie. I expect the release here end of the year, but I take the guess that even school classes will be shown this.... Which may require another version flyer. Kids are lied here to about their history as well. And it may be an eye-opener as a side effect.


Targeting the movie theater will have the advantage that the people watching the movie are at least interested in the subject. Of course they will mostly be biased in favor of the Holocaust Narrative. That's why we need the flyer to be worded as neutral as possible. I can be "In your face" as well, but that may get the mental defenses up. The reader needs to be carefully prepared to realize that he has been lied to on a massive scale. If that happens ... and this will take a while. There is a good chance that person may support Holocaust Revisionism in one form or another. Even if it's only expressing doubts at a braai. The cinemas I have in mind are near universities, so I expect a higher presence there of the University stuff between 30 and 60 as well as history students. It's more the Whites that go for this, but the Blacks tend to find that Holocaust narrative suspicious anyway.

The typical Holocaust believer here is above median Age, English-Speaking, Agnostic-Atheistic, White with non-technical higher education. Blacks, Indians, Coloureds are less into that anyway. And they work more on gut-feel in such matters. There word doesn't count as much neither. That sounds "racist", but is the truth.

Flyer versions can of course be worded in a way, that it won't violate Holocaust-Heresy suppression legislation in the respective countries.
This brings me to the point that the persecution of Revisionists should be mentioned as well.

I recall having done a flyer on another movies years ago. I think it was something with Mel Gibson done. My memory isn't that good about it. I just recall a debate with some students about it. Personally I think we can get more about this now.

[ginger]

I would work with another film, a TV documentary called "NOVA Holocaust on Trial", which is 55 minutes and is posted on YouTube. It is about the same trial. For 45 minutes is shows film of the harassment, and expulsion of the Jews, and toward the end it features Van Pelt asserting that 120,000 were murdered each month. At 45:50 Van Pelt reads from a patent application for a cremation oven and incredibly asserts that thousands could be cremated each day with the help of this oven. From my research the oven was never built. I can get the links to the TV documentary and to the patent application describing the oven that was never built, if anybody is interested. Anyway the TV documentary claims to be real, and its actors are not as glamorous, and it could be a tool to criticize "Denial". The science in this documentary is very poor.

[Hektor]

As soon as a transcript is out. We can start. But we also can predict what they may likely assert given the coverage the trial got.

I guess Ginger's hint has got some merit. And I recall the document showing a continuous cremation oven. That was a quote to the SS, if I recall correctly, which they declined. The crematoria built was actually based on the typhus epidemic during 1942 and on plans to build a far bigger camp.

[Hannover]

I would work with another film, a TV documentary called "NOVA Holocaust on Trial", which is 55 minutes and is posted on YouTube. It is about the same trial. For 45 minutes is shows film of the harassment, and expulsion of the Jews, and toward the end it features Van Pelt asserting that 120,000 were murdered each month. At 45:50 Van Pelt reads from a patent application for a cremation oven and incredibly asserts that thousands could be cremated each day with the help of this oven. From my research the oven was never built. I can get the links to the TV documentary and to the patent application describing the oven that was never built, if anybody is interested. Anyway the TV documentary claims to be real, and its actors are not as glamorous, and it could be a tool to criticize "Denial". The science in this documentary is very poor.

Yes, this amazing 'cremation oven' was in fact an incinerator that was never built.
see:'
'The Ovens in the Camps are Incinerators Now
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7842

Oh the desperation of the scammers.

- Hannover

So called "holocaust eyewitnesses" making absurd, impossible, and contradictory claims is not the exception, but the rule.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

I would work with another film, a TV documentary called "NOVA Holocaust on Trial", which is 55 minutes and is posted on YouTube. It is about the same trial. For 45 minutes is shows film of the harassment, and expulsion of the Jews, and toward the end it features Van Pelt asserting that 120,000 were murdered each month. At 45:50 Van Pelt reads from a patent application for a cremation oven and incredibly asserts that thousands could be cremated each day with the help of this oven. From my research the oven was never built. I can get the links to the TV documentary and to the patent application describing the oven that was never built, if anybody is interested. Anyway the TV documentary claims to be real, and its actors are not as glamorous, and it could be a tool to criticize "Denial". The science in this documentary is very poor.

That segment of documentary obviously passes on false information to viewers, but it was portraying something that actually happened at the trial.

Rampton and van Pelt really did attempt to pass off text from Klaus and Christel Kunz's 1985 report on the 1942 Topf patent application as being text from the application itself.

Irving raised no objection; it was the judge who noticed something was awry. Van Pelt apologised, but amazingly the judge concluded that "It probably does not affect the point."

At 42:50 a "Courtroom reenactment" begins, re-enacting an exchange between David Irving and defence witness Robert Jan van Pelt, in which Irving (portrayed as an evil villain) quizzes Van Pelt (portrayed as science incarnate) over the amount of coke needed to cremate 120,000 bodies per month, the figure van Pelt claims that the Nazis stated their four crematoriums at Auschwitz II (Birkenau) could process. The real exchange took place on the afternoon of the trial's ninth day (Tuesday, January 25, 2000), and the TV's show re-enactment is a long way from being how the exchange is recorded on the trial transcript—it's more of a dramatisation than a re-enactment.

At 45:50 the narrator states:

"In re-examination for the defence, Richard Rampton produces the patent application for the Topf ovens supplied to Auschwitz for incineration purposes."

After which the actors playing Rampton and van Pelt, appear to divulge the horrific details of the cremation capacity at Auschwitz. After which somber musics begins, whilst it cuts to footage of Leichenkeller I of Krema 2, at Auschwitz II, the "gas chamber" in which "500,000" were killed. But this is all a complete hoax by the documentary's "Programme Consultant" i.e. David Cesarani.

Richard Rampton (the defence barrister), began his re-examination of Robert Jan van Pelt on the afternoon of the trial's eleventh day (Thursday, January 27, 2000), two days after Irving had the exchange with van Pelt which was re-enacted in the documentary. And Rampton did produce a patent application from Topf during his re-examination, but what the actor playing van Pelt is reading out, is not—as the corrupt documentary insinuates—a war-time Topf patent application, but a report compiled 40 years after the war, about the said Topf patent application.

The impression the documentary intentionally gives, is that van Pelt proved at the trial, with a genuine war time document on Auschwitz's cremation capacity, that the Nazis possessed the ability to cremate a human body with just 3.5kg of coke. When in reality, he just read from a mid-1980's report on a proposed oven, which never got off the drawing board. As you can see, the quote the actor playing van Pelt reads, appears in the real van Pelt's expert report for the trial:

"Pre-heating of such an oven should take at least two days. After this preheating the oven will not need any more fuel due to the heat produced by the corpses. It will be able to maintain its necessary high temperature through self-heating. But to allow it to maintain a constant temperature, it would have become necessary to introduce at the same time so-called well-fed and so-called emaciated corpses, because one can only guarantee continuous high temperatures through the emission of human fat.61"

61 Report Klaus and Christel Kunz, 25 April 1985, on patent application T 58240 Kl. 24 for a “Kontinuierliche arbeitender Leichen-Verbrennungsofen für Massenbetrieb,” Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Oswiecim, ms. BW 30/44.

- The Pelt Report (1999). By Professor Robert Jan van Pelt. p.305 & 317.

Richard Rampton even attempted to pull the same trick during the trial itself. Rampton asked van Pelt to read from the 1985 report (which was quoted in van Pelt's report), after giving the impression to the court that it was the November 5, 1942 Topf patent application he was referring to. But to Justice Gray's credit, he stated: "What you quote in your report does not read like a patent application. Is it a quote from the patent application?" After Gray discovered the ruse, van Pelt apologised, but to Gray's detriment, he stated: "It probably does not affect the point."

For me to detail in full Rampton's attempted subterfuge, would decuple the length of this article. But it can be read on the trial transcript (Day 11, p.159-164); details of the patent application and the 1985 report about the patent application, can be read in van Pelt's expert report for the trial (beginning in the paragraph in which footnote 806 is cited).

[Hektor]

....
Yes, this amazing 'cremation oven' was in fact an incinerator that was never built.
see:'
'The Ovens in the Camps are Incinerators Now
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7842

Oh the desperation of the scammers.

- Hannover

So called "holocaust eyewitnesses" making absurd, impossible, and contradictory claims is not the exception, but the rule.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

Guess we are talking about this patented facility:

https://web.archive.org/web/20091229153 ... _ef_en.pdf

Offered, declined, hence never built. And that's quite telling.

Regarding cremation at the trial

The authorities in Auschwitz abandoned any respect for the dead and did not abide by civilian laws of cremation. They burned multiple bodies at one time, continuously pushing in more to keep the fires hot.
Therefore, citing the civilian cremation process as some kind of proof that the ovens in Auschwitz-Birkenau couldn't have handled so many bodies is a false comparison.
http://www.hdot.org/en/learning/myth-fa ... tion1.html

- I guess, when people are dying due to epidemics in the hundreds per day, "civilian laws" isn't exactly on top of your priority list.
- Pushing in more corpses "to keep the fires hot" makes no sense at all. It's like putting more water into the pot to cook faster.
- They don't seem to get it, the issue is technical, physical, practical feasibility not some legislation regarding cremation.

I think we should make maths, logic and physics obligatory, before someone can become a historian. That my save us a lot of BS.

[ginger]

Thanks Black Rabbit - Your summary explained very well what led up to including the oven in evidence at the trial - the oven was crucial to Lipstadt's argument in the documentary. This link - http://www.topfundsoehne.de/cms-www/ind ... id=120&l=1 - states the oven was 4 stories high but in photos of the ovens at Auschwitz such an oven is clearly not there. I would be surprised if they emphasis the oven in "Denial" since including it at trial casts doubt on the integrity of the court, and is clearly an attempt to deceive.

[Hektor]

Critical Reception needs to bring that over that no mass incinerator was used, while being available, but actually more expensive, less efficient ordinary single muffle crematoria. It needs to be explained that the crematoria were not designed to include facilities for homicidal gassings.

I also presume that the "Holocaust Experts" did realize this by now, which is why they evade to "bunkers" or other killing methods now. If they ever will admit to having spread lies for decades?

[ginger]

Hektor - are you saying that a mass incinerator was available for disposing of bodies at Auschwitz? Photos from the crematoria at the camp show the standard Topf ovens - and an oven that was 4 stories high can not be seen.
The oven described by Van Pelt at the trial was for cremating bodies. The Court should never have allowed Van Pelt to testify about it since it was never built or fully functioning at any of the camps. His testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

[Hektor]

Hektor - are you saying that a mass incinerator was available for disposing of bodies at Auschwitz? Photos from the crematoria at the camp show the standard Topf ovens - and an oven that was 4 stories high can not be seen.
The oven described by Van Pelt at the trial was for cremating bodies. The Court should never have allowed Van Pelt to testify about it since it was never built or fully functioning at any of the camps. His testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

It wasn't available as a product in Auschwitz. But it was available as a design and plausibly Topf & Soehne had the technical capability of building that thing in Auschwitz. So it was available as a possible alternative to the facilities that were ultimately built, but not as a finished good in Auschwitz ready to use.

Well, not sure what Irving did do with the testimony, but I can imagine representing yourself in a trial where your opponent has available any resources money can buy, can be quite exhaustive. A good lawyer would however have used this as a great opportunity in the way I suggested. Point out that this was available as an option, but never built, hence never used. Then use Occam's razor on this. The plausible conclusion is, that the SS had no use for it, since it didn't plan and execute the gassing of hundreds of thousands of Jews.

[hermod]

Critical Reception needs to bring that over that no mass incinerator was used, while being available, but actually more expensive, less efficient ordinary single muffle crematoria.

Important argument indeed. No need to wonder why the Soviets first equipped their Auschwitz propaganda 'murder factory' with a "blast furnace for burning bodies." They had realized that the Auschwitz actual ovens just couldn't do the job, the job they needed to perform in order to demonize their 'fascist' enemies.



THE FACTORY OF DEATH AT AUSCHWITZ, by Boris Polevoi, Soviet national paper Pravda (organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), February 2, 1945:

The German hangmen, noting the primitiveness of this method of killing, decided to increase the productivity of the industrial plant of death by mechanizing it, leading to the gas chambers, the electric conveyor belt, the construction of the blast furnace for burning bodies and the so-called "ovens."

[ginger]

Hektor wrote:

"It wasn't available as a product in Auschwitz. But it was available as a design and plausibly Topf & Soehne had the technical capability of building that thing in Auschwitz. So it was available as a possible alternative to the facilities that were ultimately built, but not as a finished good in Auschwitz ready to use."

Hektor, do you really believe they could have built a cremation oven that was fueled by the bodies it was cremating? When I heard this on the TV documentary I said to myself "Since when can they do this?"

David Irving had made a good point when he argued that cremating 120,000 of corpses a month would take mountains of fuel and there was no evidence of mountains of fuel at Auschwitz. Van Pelt countered by reading from the patent application for the "magic" oven. Why David Irving did not vigorously challenge the existence, or even a possibility, of such an oven is a mystery.

[Hektor]

Hektor wrote:

"It wasn't available as a product in Auschwitz. But it was available as a design and plausibly Topf & Soehne had the technical capability of building that thing in Auschwitz. So it was available as a possible alternative to the facilities that were ultimately built, but not as a finished good in Auschwitz ready to use."

Hektor, do you really believe they could have built a cremation oven that was fueled by the bodies it was cremating? When I heard this on the TV documentary I said to myself "Since when can they do this?"

David Irving had made a good point when he argued that cremating 120,000 of corpses a month would take mountains of fuel and there was no evidence of mountains of fuel at Auschwitz. Van Pelt countered by reading from the patent application for the "magic" oven. Why David Irving did not vigorously challenge the existence, or even a possibility, of such an oven is a mystery.

As I see it, the Topf + Soehne is not fed with bodies as fuel. The fuel would still be coke or other hydrocarbons. The advantages would be the continuity of feeding it plus perhaps better use of heat for cremation. So it would save on energy and labor, but you still would have to run it with coke or other fuel. Consider that the human body consists mainly of body and non burning compounds. There is fat and other carbons in the tissue, but you have almost burn it completely before that starts to have any effect. So the human body fat or thin is a net consumer of energy, that's why you need fuel to burn/cremate it.


I didn't pay attention to what van Pelt was saying about this, can you point out to where he alleges that this was some kind of perpetual heating oven only requiring corpses to run?

If there is anything in the Topf and Soehne records that indicates an allegation that the oven doesn't require fuel, I would like to see it.