Letters to the Editor

(Click to enlarge)

Re.: D. Bartling, “Why the United States Reject the International Criminal Court,” TR, 1(3) (2003), pp. 301-308.

Dear Sir:

Your article on the American refusal to join the ICC brought to mind an incident years ago. During the war I spent a short time on Samar in the Philippines and while there heard some ugly stories. I forgot about them until I saw the story in the Wall Street Journal. Then I dug up the book The Conquest of the Philippines by the United States, 1898-1925, by Moorfield Storey and Marcial P. Lichauco (Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, NY, 1971), from which I have enclosed a few pages (see illustration). The book is not based on the testimony of some survivor wanting a million in reparations but on the sworn testimony of American soldiers before Congress. The book clearly shows we taught the Japanese how to treat prisoners.

Can you imagine the hue and cry if the Germans had taken church bells, much less if they refused to return them to the country from which they had been looted?

Sincerely,

Rudy Meyer
Port Angeles, WA

Re.: “False Memory Syndrome,” TR, 1(4) (2003), pp. 456-466.

Dear Mr Rudolf,

I refer to the November 2003 issue of The Revisionist, and in particular the series of articles dealing with so-called ‘false memory syndrome.’

I have undertaken my own detailed research and study of the ‘holocaust’ topic, and I have come to the conclusion based upon wide reading that the chief advocates of this tale are liars, pure and simple. Thus, the awkward term ‘false memory syndrome,’ and particularly as this term is applied to ‘holocaust’ tales, in effect means that someone is a liar.

I feel that it is unnecessary to spend valuable time and energy upon reviewing alleged sophisticated researchers, such as Elizabeth Loftus, when beneath all the rhetoric and endless detail (often very boring) about how people’s memories can be falsified (in plain terms they are lying), we are faced with the hard fact, as Jürgen Graf pointed out, that we live in “a society which has chosen the lie as its leitmotif” (The Giant With Feet of Clay, p. 118, 2001 Theses & Dissertations Press edition).

Robert Countess’s closing remarks about Elizabeth Loftus are also to the point. Her behavior with regard to John Demjanjuk completely disqualifies her as worthy of any respect. However, such behavior is to be expected from those of her race. Friedrich Nietzsche’s observations are also worth remembering in terms of the central issue of liars and their innate disposition towards falsification. He wrote of this Jewish propensity for falsification in The Antichrist (pp. 78f., 3^rd Noontide ed., 1997, translated by H.L. Mencken).

Finally, it strikes me that what is needed is the radical recovery of the once virile White European ability to detect the con artist and the liar. The gut instinct for that which is right as opposed to wrong. The liars have gained the upper hand. Those of us who have perceived their web of deceit ought to be far more aggressive in terms of defining their agenda which is that of falsification.

Paul Ferdinand, Liss, Hampshire, England

Re.: “9/11: Terror Attack or Government Fraud?,” TR, 1(3) (2003), pp. 248-284.

Very Interesting

Veeeeerrrrryyyy interesting article there, Herr Rudolf. But just a preliminary result you will agree.

Re: further experimentation (which seems justified): commercial, cheap, handheld GPS gear can track both position (Lat./Long.) and altitude. Recommend cell phone users use GPS rather than pilot interviews to establish time, position, altitude.

If some one wants to get REAL clever they could use Microsoft MapPoint and a laptop and GPS … program the computer to dial through a modem (it is the same type of connection) and record its time + position every time throughout the flight … Just a thought.

Come to think of it, I have never been able to make a cell call from a plane at altitude. The cell network is connected by line of sight microwave between towers on the ground. If you are close to a cell, you connect to that cell, which talks to its neighbors. Probably the cell station’s antennas are oriented to pick up signals coming in from the horizon not the sky. You could ask some cell phone engineers if it is even possible.

Wonder why no one thought of this sooner?

Glad you are still awake out there. We need someone on watch.

Eric Fowler

Cell Phones and 9/11

The series of articles in The Revisionist raise serious questions about the ‘official’ story of what really happened with the hijacked airliners on September 11, 2001. The in-depth analyses by both Germar Rudolf and Dr. Alexander K. Dewdney are well researched with regard to cell phone usage while aviating and Mark Elsis offers a devastating critique of the air defense system.

However, Dr. Dewdney’s “alternative scenario” as to what really happened on that eventful day quickly degenerates into Looney Tunes when he describes an elaborate hoax of fake cell phone calls from the aircraft. It stretches all imagination to think that operatives could build a file of names by taking flights over a period of several weeks beforehand just to gain personal information on potential flyers on 9/11. This is pure nonsense, a fantasy that just could not happen. Todd Beamer and Barbara Olson are real people who made real calls from their flights. Dr. Dewdney even turns the crash of flight 93 in Pennsylvania into a planned event. For what purpose?

The more serious question is how, technically, these calls were made at all. In the case of Todd Beamer, he was apparently on an airfone. But the other, purported cell phone calls, raise problems. Reading of the technical difficulties of cell phone usage in flight and, yet, faced with a historical record of such calls almost places one in the position of the French historians when confronted with irrefutable evidence about the technical impossibility of the Auschwitz ‘gas chambers.’ They didn’t let that bother them. “It happened; therefore it was possible.” In the cell phone case, the only possible answer is that the calls were made at a low enough altitude to enable some workability as, clearly, usage would not have been possible at the normal cruising altitudes for the flights.

The elaborate hoax imagined by Dr. Dewdney would have required vast resources, both technical and manpower related. I don’t think it is technically possible in this day to remotely control an airliner as described to take perfect aim at the Twin Towers let alone TO program fake phone calls to shift suspicion to radical Arabs. I also believe that the large number of people that would have been involved in the deception would lead to a slip. The greater the number in the loop, the harder it is to keep a secret. Deceptions of this magnitude could only work with a small number of tightly controlled operatives.

(As an aside, this issue works to the advantage of “holocaust deniers.” An operation of the magnitude of the conventional literature, i.e., the deliberate destruction of 6,000,000 Jews entails a large operation with a huge number of people knowledgeable about the operation or at least major parts of it. Yet, the silence is deafening as there was no such awareness and, contrary to popular belief, no reliable witnesses have ever come forth to describe the perceived reality.)

The problem with a wildly unrealistic scenario as described by Dr. Dewdney is that it casts doubt on all of his analyses and that can even extend to the publication and its editor. A case in point is the series Gestapo Chief by Gregory Douglas. Seemingly realistic, the reader is roped into a believable scenario describing how Heinrich Müller not only survived the war, but ended up working on behalf of the CIA. But when Douglas goes so far as to show that Hitler actually escaped Berlin and survived the war, an assertion that flies against the face of scientifically established evidence, Douglas loses all credibility and the series of books is thus consigned to the dustbin as a forgery.

This is the true danger of publicizing ‘crackpot’ conspiracy theories: a loss of credibility for more serious and believable undertakings such as holocaust revisionism.

PSH 11/17/03

Remark by the Editor

A major restricting factor of making cell phone calls from airliners is not only the cruising altitude, but also the speed of the plane. All 9/11 airliners cruised at full speed, which made it impossible to place phone calls from them, no matter which height the object was traveling at. Therefore, not cell phone calls were placed from these airliners, as this was technically impossible, at least according to my findings and to expert statements. All calls were therefore either placed by seatphone (via satellite) or those calls were faked.

In his article, Prof. Dewdney indicated which efforts the Mossad is capable of for a minor intelligence operation – creating many witnesses along the way. So how many people needed to know about a possible fake 9/11 scenario? Those who manipulate the plane’s computer – perhaps one or two people – those gathering the information about passengers – another one or two, maybe even the same people – those placing the phone calls – another one or two, or perhaps the same people – those setting up the Arabs, and those planning and coordinating it all.

Of course planes can be controlled accurately by electronics. With today’s readily available simple and cheap Global Positioning Systems one can even control and steer any kind of boat much better than by hand. The same is all the more true for airplanes with their sophisticated electronics.

Besides, just a few weeks ago I spoke to a former Air Force pilot who confirmed that the pilots who flew those 9/11 airliners right into their targets at high speed must have had long experiences as fighter pilots. No way some Arabs with barely any flight experiences could have pulled that off! And what sophisticated, well trained pilot would do such a suicide mission?

Also, as former security advisor of the German Chancellor Andreas von Bülow wrote, the Arabs left traces like a herd of trampling elephants behind, but the “black boxes” of all four airliners involved were magically destroyed. This reeks like a setup. It would be worthwhile to see his book on this covert operation, which avoids any “crackpot” theory, translated into English.

Germar Rudolf

Re: Thomas A. Fudge, “The Fate of Joel Hayward in New Zealand Hands: from Holocaust Historian to Holocaust?,” TR, 1(4) (2003), pp. 439-448.

To the Editor:

Dr. Fudge ends his fine essay with this question:

I would like to propose one possible explanation. The Holocaust Lobby direly wants to prevent Holocaust revisionism from ever entering mainstream Academia. In their view, they have to keep Holocaust revisionism a “fringe movement, and they want to make sure that Holocaust revisionism is never accorded academic respectability. Thus, it makes sense that the Holocaust Lobbyists would make a “permanent example” of one of the first attempts to introduce Revisionist ideas into a respected University history department. If they make sure the harassment and agony of Dr. Hayward go on indefinitely, this will send the following not-so-subtle message to mainstream academic historians: “If you dare flirt with Holocaust revisionism, you will suffer the same agonizing fate that Joel Hayward is enduring.” Clearly, this message will (so the Holocaust Lobby believes) discourage most mainstream academics from ever taking up Holocaust revisionism.

However, the world political situation is now shifting against political Zionism and Jewish political power. As the world inches more and more toward another major war in the Middle East, brought about in a large measure by Jewish-Zionism, so too will more and more academics, intellectuals and journalists begin to question and reject an ideological driving force behind Jewish-Zionism – the Holocaust ideology. Furthermore, the more the Holocaust Lobby utilizes their totalitarian methods to stifle healthy debate on the Holocaust issue, so too will freedom loving people rebel and reject their methods and ideology. Indeed, it is no accident that the attempt to censor Dr. Fudge’s article actually backfired against the Holocaust Lobby – the article’s circulation was increased by tenfold.

In just one year, Germar Rudolf and company have turned The Revisionist into an outstanding, first-rate intellectual journal, and I believe it will be an intellectual force to be reckoned with in the near future.

All the best, Paul Grubach

Re: André Chelain, “Was the Me262 the First Airplane to Break the Sound Barrier?,” TR, 1(1) (2003), pp. 69-71.

Sir!

You ask the question “Was the Me262 the First Airplane to Break the Sound Barrier?” At http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/ you will find the answer: Yes.

This site contains a Me 262 A-1 Pilot’s Handbook, ref: F-SU-111-ND dated January 10, 1946. Issued by Headquarters AIR Material Command, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. It describes the behavior of the plane at speed faster than sound (see below). It also contains the report of a pilot breaking the sound barrier.

Wolfram Krail