https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/22/online-conspiracy-theories-feed-holocaust-denial A new generation of Holocaust deniers is emerging through a clutch of popular “gateway” conspiracy theories, according to one of the UK’s leading experts on the subject. As Denial, a film about the disgraced historian and notorious Holocaust denier David Irving, hits cinemas later this month, attention is focusing on the ageing generation of deniers who emerged with Irving at its vanguard and are now dying out. But it appears that Holocaust denial has found new momentum in the digital age. The UK’s foremost academic on the subject claims a new internet-based generation is embracing denial, having been drawn to it out of antisemitism or a belief in conspiracy theories. (...) The twitterification of history. What could better fit the contemporary groove?
I keep waiting for one of the alt-rightists who drift in and out of here to commit to this position. A couple have gone right up to the line but wouldn't go in.
l don't understand how anyone could deny the holocaust. those piles of skulls and bones had to come from somewhere.
Yeah the video & pictures couldn't have been faked back then - the technology didn't exist to fake the skinny, starving people. Granted the new thing among deniers is nit-picking over the numbers: "crunch the numbers and you see the Nazis couldn't kill 6,000,000 - the total had to be far lower!" Whatever! The mission to exterminate people as fast as possible is pretty much the point here! And you can't fake the number tattoos on their arms either.
There's tons of evidence ---- for those with the eyes to see. But that's just the problem: people will ignore the evidence and believe what they damn well want to. Your point about the technology not existing at the time is also a valid retort to the Moon-Hoax Truthers. The space vehicles existed right enough --- but the video technology for faking the landing simply didn't.
The Moon Landing hoax thing is actually somewhat easier to understand but very easy to rebut. I had a student my second year teaching that never hesitated to claim "we never landed on the moon". But part of the people not believing in the moon landing is actually the fault of NASA itself. NASA for years has loved to release pictures of the lunar surface (and for that matter things like the outer planets) and give the impression that "this is what you would actually see if you were there". When in reality due to the limitations of camera technology and things like transmission limitations, lots of those views are not remotely what a person would see with the naked eye.
A modified Hasselblad 500 Camera was used, actually several. The film used was a medium format film. Medium format film can have a digital equivalent resolution of 400MP. Which is higher than of almost any digital camera that can be made available. The human eye resolution equivalence is around 576MP. But that is the entirety of the field of vision. Left to right, top to bottom. But for the area of focus, the resolution is around 7-8MP. Which means that the views from the camera are what the eye can see, since the cameras did not take shots that fill the entire human field of vision.
Doesn't that mean then that many of the panoramic camera shots of the lunar surface are actually composites?
It can, which means that the panoramic shots are higher resolution than the human can see. So if you have enough to make a 360 view, then the panoramic shot is better detailed that the eye can see.
So doesn't my point stand? That (at least some) of the shots put out by NASA are NOT what a person would be able to see if they were there?
No... the field of vision for the camera is smaller than what the human field of vision is. The camera is roughly 400MP, the human eye is about 576MP. If you composite enough photos to fill the human field of vision, the pixel count will be higher than what the eye can see. So the panoramic will have greater detail than the eye can see. Since there is more detail, then the panoramic will be what the human can see.
The conspiracy about Stanley Kubrick filming a fake moon landing is hilarious! Taken at face value it fails from the git-go: Stanley Kubrick is a perfectionist to the extreme - he has his actors do 37 takes to stir a cup of coffee. No astronauts would have the patience to pull off an entire moon landing because it would take insane amounts of their time. Faking it would quite literally take more time & effort than just flying to & landing on the actual moon.
It would, but that's not what you said. You said "Lots of those views are not remotely what a person would see with the naked eye." The photos do show what a human would see.
I thought your posts indicated that the photos would show MORE than what the human eye would see. Which is the point I've been trying to make.
I got on the internet in 1995, and there were little Nazi shitheads then. What's this "new online generation", bullshit? Kids that were titty-fed on the net? Hell, I saw them come up and be Nazis, and worse, Ayn Randers all along. This shit didn't fall from the sky, its always been festering. Nice of you to wake up, and realize what world you're in, mainstream media.
That article was very short on har numbers. I honestly do not see denying the holocaust ever being a widely held belief and that is a good thing. Places like the Guardian like to find extreme outliers and then pretend they are a bigger deal or more common than they really are.
Huh? I said I dpn't believe most people would be dumb enough to believe it and you interpret that as support? Put the crack pipe down, son.
