Need someone savvy on the holocaust

[haarp]

Greetings, I know this isn't really a conspiracy but it doesn't fit in the other sections.

I'm discussing the holocaust with someone on youtube, however I have next-to-no knowledge on the subject and don't want to let emotion get the better of me.

It's been over 70 years and I want to know what advancements have taken place to prove scientifically that:

The buildings were used as Gas Chambers.
Where the 6 Million figure came from and how we know it exists.
How we know it was government policy to exterminate just Jews.


This person's argument is:

Typhus epidemic and other diseases killing tens of millions throughout the war.
Allied bombing destroyed Germany's infrastructure so no food got to the camps.
Why would Germany destroy their much-needed slave work force.
6 Million figure biblical, apparently it would discredit the Jewish religion if the state of Israel was created without that text coming true.
6 million figure used during World War One during Jewish fund raising campaigns in America and during Roman times. (so the number has significance?)
Lack of real scientific evidence to support the holocaust claim, eye witnesses that recanted their story in the 1985 trials in Canada.
Soviet Archives having the Auschwitz registry logs after it was claimed they had been destroyed by the Germans.


I've browsed through Wikipedia but it's very biased. I need someone with a scientific mind and knows the facts.

Thanks

[Mick]

I don't know much about the deniers claims, but this is a good reference (see the links at the end of the article).
http://skepdic.com/holocaustdenial.html

I'm not sure why you say the Wikipedia article is biased though, could you give an example?

[haarp]

It just seems to attack people who challenge orthodox views and doesn't point out the contradictions in their own studies and gives people a one-sided view. The author Carlo Mattogno refuted a popular exterminationists book with his own 700 page book yet he's called a holocaust denier on Wikipedia and attacked and not shown the work he's done towards pointing out the flaws in the exterminationist claim. Rather than try and point out the difference in history revision and holocaust denial they give the view the guys an uneducated nutter. I try my best to stand back and view everything scientifically based on fact and remove emotion and belief and even I can see the bias there and notice it in a lot of Wikipedia articles. So it kind of irritates me to see that.

[Mick]

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. You should just ignore any editorializing there, and look at the references they provide.

You asked a lot about the "six million" figure. Wikipedia gives a lot of references for the various ways the total has been counted, and discusses the various different numbers.

Maybe you should focus on one thing at a time. Pick one claim from the denier, and look deeply into what the claim actually is, and what the facts are behind it.

[SR1419]

I think another thing to consider is the eyewitness accounts of survivors...you can still ask people who were actually in the camps what they saw and know.

[haarp]

I think another thing to consider is the eyewitness accounts of survivors...you can still ask people who were actually in the camps what they saw and know.

Well this is precisely the point this person is making, that it's just eye witnesses that provide the bulk of the evidence but it's not that many people for such an extraordinary claim. I was hoping to find a clear and cut picture of why we believe it happened, I mean the science must be irrefutable for the world establishment to believe it occurred the way it did. As said previously, it's well documented in the 1985 court case in Canada that the pioneer eye witness of the holocaust recanted his views while under oath. It's the same guy who told the Nuremberg judge it had happened the way it did. It seems so conflicting and no straight answers.

[Mick]

There seems to be plenty of information available on the net, and many books on the subject. I'm not sure what your question is. It's accepted as fact because of the overwhelming evidence. Deniers reject or ignore the evidence, and raise specious points like the contribution of allied bombing, or simply make things up.

There's plenty of evidence besides eyewitness evidence, and the eyewitness evidence comes from thousands of people

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article....uleId=10007147

Content from external source:

In order to avoid any accusation of exclusive reliance on personal testimony, which later generations might perceive to be biased, prosecutors decided to base their case primarily on thousands of documents written by the Germans themselves. These masses of documents were translated into the court's four official languages, analyzed for their significance, and reproduced for distribution to defense attorneys and other trial participants. The prosecution presented other evidence through artifacts, diagrams, and photographs taken by Nazi photographers in concentration camps.


Nineteen investigative teams scoured German records, interviewed witnesses, and visited the sites of atrocities to build the case.
Eyewitness testimony presented at the Nuremberg trials laid the foundation for much of what we know about the Holocaust including details of the Auschwitz death machinery, atrocities committed by the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units), the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto, and the original statistical estimate of six million murdered Jews.

Here's a good brief overview of some of the main denier arguments:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html

[SR1419]

Well this is precisely the point this person is making, that it's just eye witnesses that provide the bulk of the evidence but it's not that many people for such an extraordinary claim.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "scientific" evidence...there is certainly a great deal of historical evidence.

We believe it happened based on the accumulated evidence. Start with the evidence presented in Nuremberg- the Germans own records are quite damning.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/gallery_...uleId=10007271

That there are any survivors still alive after 65yrs is impressive- and yet it is a substantial number of people even today- Their accounts are quite compelling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...aust_survivors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel

There certainly is a lot more information available other than Wiki-pages:

http://www.hdot.org/en/denial

I think the real question is what is the evidence that it DIDN'T happen?

[SR1419]

Here is some forensic evidence that rebuts one of the deniers claims:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/aus...rt/holes.shtml

[haarp]

I've put the links to him and should have some answers later on, thanks.

[Mick]

I'd attempt to focus on one thing at a time. If you address multiple issues, then deniers of all kinds simply drop some and move on to others. It's a waste of time. One thing at a time like:

How we know it was government policy to exterminate just Jews.

Answer: it wasn't. Nobody said it was, gypsies, the mentally ill and handicapped, homosexuals, Slavs, and others were targeted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu..._the_Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khatyn_massacre

Get him to address that. Don't let mistakes slide or you'll make no progress.

[haarp]

Exterminationists are very adamant that there was such a policy which is one of the arguments between the two sides. But this person is giving me an email address and i'll be able to exchange information, he's well versed in the argument and read books from both sides so I hope to get some verifiable evidence.

[Mick]

Exterminationists are very adamant that there was such a policy

I've never heard anyone claim there was a policy to exterminate JUST Jews.

Maybe they are talking about the lack of official written orders for various things that happened. The Nazis did try to keep things secret, and so refrained from written orders. There was a big public backlash in Germany over Action T4:

Content from external source:

Hitler and his aides were aware from the start that a programme of killing large numbers of Germans with disabilities would be unpopular with the German public. Although Hitler had a fixed policy of not issuing written instructions for policies relating to what would later be classed as crimes against humanity, he made an exception when he provided Bouhler and Brack with written authority for the T4 programme in his confidential October 1939 letter. This was apparently to overcome opposition within the German state bureaucracy – the Justice Minister, Franz Gürtner, needed to be shown Hitler's letter in August 1940 to gain his cooperation.^[51]Hitler told Bouhler at the outset that "the Führer's Chancellery must under no circumstances be seen to be active in this matter."^[50] There was a particular need for caution in Catholic areas, which after the annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938 included nearly half the population of Greater Germany, and where public opinion could be expected to be hostile. In March 1940 a confidential report from the SD in Austria warned that the killing programme must be implemented with stealth "in order to avoid a probable backlash of public opinion during the war".

[MikeC]

AFAIK Jew constituted about 50% of the victims of the concentration camps & extermination programmes - other groups were communists, gypsies (Roma), Gays, 7th day adventists (as pacifists), resistence fighters, homosexuals, foreign intelligentsia, and Soviet POW's.

The loss of labour to the German War effort due to persecution of the Jews was a topic I covered briefly in a year 2 history course on 20th century Europe - IIRC there is some speculation that the effort made to exterminate them (& all he others), plus the positive effort their labour cloud have made, might have been a significant factor had it been directed towards he war effort.

Even as it was slave labour was used a lot - on the Atlantic Wall & building V2 rockets are 2 of the better known examples.

[Charlie Primero]

...the science must be irrefutable for the world establishment to believe it occurred the way it did.

That is an erroneous assumption.

If you proceed based upon that error, your following conclusions will also be in error.

A good example is the fact no homicidal gas chambers existed at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Ask 100 random people on the street if there were, and I estimate 99 would be absolutely certain there were. Why? Because that lie is perpetuated endlessly by mainstream media outlets like NPR, ABC, CBS, History, Disney, Fox, CNN, BBC, et al.

Just because "The World Establishment" believes a thing does not make that thing true.

[Mick]

That is an erroneous assumption.

If you proceed based upon that error, your following conclusions will also be in error.

A good example is the fact no homicidal gas chambers existed at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Ask 100 random people on the street if there were, and I estimate 99 would be absolutely certain there were. Why? Because that lie is perpetuated endlessly by mainstream media outlets like NPR, ABC, CBS, History, Disney, Fox, CNN, BBC, et al.

Just because "The World Establishment" believes a thing does not make that thing true.

It's generally a pretty good bet though. I think I'd side with Wikipedia and Skeptic Magazine on this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwi...entration_camp

[haarp]

That is an erroneous assumption.

If you proceed based upon that error, your following conclusions will also be in error.

A good example is the fact no homicidal gas chambers existed at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Ask 100 random people on the street if there were, and I estimate 99 would be absolutely certain there were. Why? Because that lie is perpetuated endlessly by mainstream media outlets like NPR, ABC, CBS, History, Disney, Fox, CNN, BBC, et al.

Just because "The World Establishment" believes a thing does not make that thing true.

Well it's been over a month since I posted and in that time I've managed to see why there are arguments. At first I couldn't understand why there were skeptics because, well, I had done no research. So I found out a few things that are causing controversy.

1. There's been no forensic investigation on the mass graves to prove cause of death was by gassing. In camps such as Triblinka, a camp which has a 2.7 million or 700,000 death count depending on who you go with, which was also alleged to be a gas camp using a stolen soviet tank engine, no forensic investigation was ever carried out to determine cause of death or the real numbers. It is assumed who is in the graves, how many and how they died. It's also assumed how many grave pits there are, the technique they used is ' we found some, so there must be more ' and they've left it at that, taking only samples using a tool to extract layers of soil. They will not dig up any bodies because it's against the Jewish religion unless it's to solve a crime. Overall it's very unscientific and flimsy to base 100% conclusions on.

2. The exterminationists claim there there is no blue staining which Zyklon B leaves behind when in heavy use, because the chambers were washed down after every gassing. However, water actually makes it more absorbent and would have the opposite effect they were trying to accomplish. But they say the burden of proof is up to the skeptics and that they would have to recreate the chambers in the exact same conditions they were in 70 years ago, which obviously can't to happen.

3. Lack of eye witnesses on the gassings and lines of people. There are roughly just over a dozen eye witnesses who claim to have worked in, been gassed or seen, of which only 2 have testified under oath. The other tens of thousands of people are not asked about the gassings, it is a very clever trick. They only ask for opinions on the chambers from what I call ' celebrity ' survivors - people who have become known amongst the survivor lectures and tours etc. If you go to Spielberg's Shoah Foundation website you can browse through the videos of ordinary people and you'll get endless amounts of talk about what the conditions were like in the camp, what they did in their spare time, ate etc. But they are not asked if they saw the chambers. There is a clear deception going on and just one of the things I've noticed.

4. The witnesses who claimed to have seen, worked in or been gassed, have strange stories. One man who claims to have been gassed 6 times was asked 'How did you survive?' and his reply was 'maybe children are more resistant'. Another claims she also survived in the chambers, twice, she also claims she was personally experimented on by Mengele himself, she also claims they removed her tattoo which is why she doesn't have one (nor a scar) which is strange because generally only workers got tattoos, exterminationists believe people who were going to be gassed went straight to the chamber. While a Sonderkommando (someone who works in the Crematoriums) claims the SS guards would bayonet anyone still alive after a gassing, even babies(how did the other kids survive to tell their tale?). This man also claims every 3-6 months they would kill off Sonderkommandos to make sure none of what they had seen were to ever be known to the public but of course he survived, and also his 3 Sonderkommando relatives. There's so much more too. These witnesses make up the bulk of the story that mainstream historians use. They don't find a problem with their claims and are willing to use their information in holocaust education classes without question.

5. Documentation. Originally it was claimed, by the Soviets, all paperwork relating to the camps was destroyed so the Nazi's involved could avoid war crime charges. However, when the Soviet archives opened to Western historians the Auschwitz blueprints were found along with death certificates and inmate counts. The buildings that are claimed to be gas chambers by the Soviets were called ' morgues ' on the blueprint, which would explain the architecture and why they were underground. The exterminationsts then claimed the Nazis were using double speak and that they were trying to cover up that they were chambers, which again is one of those claims you can't refute due to circumstance.

6. The euthanasia program. Mercy killings - i.e the killing of those too weak to work or even in some cases the killing of badly wounded soldiers coming back from the front. Exterminationists claim this is clear evidence of the brutality of the Nazis and that there would be no reason not to believe they would carry out the gassings in the 6 camps. Skeptics say that because the Nazis were relatively open about this why would they go through such lengths to cover up the chambers? Indeed, if they couldn't cover up the euthanasia program how did they do it for the biggest mass killing operation of all time?

7. The signed statements of the SS guards. People say this is conclusive proof that the gassings occurred. But we know the camp kommandant of Auschwitz was tortured and that torture happened. How can all the signed statements be trusted? The fact torture was used just in a few known cases should taint and bring doubt unto the others rather than be taken as complete fact. But no caution is taken and all statements are used in education classes.

8. The holocaust relies heavily on the Soviets. At the end of the war the West were claiming they had found death camps, slowly but surely they were all debunked and only the 6 remaining camps which were in Soviet territory are labeled as death camps. We know the Soviets reconstructed buildings inside the camps because allegedly the Nazis blew everything related to the gassings up to avoid being found guilty(although there's no way to stop a forensic investigation from finding out if gassings did indeed occur by simply blowing in the roof and walls). The Soviets didn't rebuild everything only a few chambers and the 'wall of death' in Auschwitz which is shown to tourists. How much can we trust the Soviets? They lied about the documentation, why? They also claimed 4 million died at Auschwitz, then the number got lowered to 1.1 million once the Soviets were found to have exaggerated the count. Everything we first learned about the camps came from the Soviets or witnesses and thus stories were born without solid confirmation.

9. Logistics. The mathematics don't support the death count given, the architecture of the chambers, the amount of furnaces. Among some of the claims that up to 5 bodies at a time were being squashed into an oven that could barely fit 2 bodies and have nothing but ash in 30-40 minutes, there is also the claim that 2500 bodies were being gassed every 30 minutes to an hour per chamber, all one has to do is look at the architecture to see how that would be impossible to herd and remove that amount of bodies into those tight spaces in that time frame. Take into account the 'washing down the chamber' claim to remove traces of Zyklon B and it makes it more absurd. There is just no way that can support itself, the only reason that claim exists is because no one in a position of authority wants to doubt the eye witness who made that claim in fear of being called an anti-jewish holocaust denier.

10. For the 6 million figure to be correct in the time frame given by eye witnesses and the Soviets, thousands of people would be lining up day and night waiting for their turn to enter the chamber. In the case of Auschwitz Birkenau, the chambers were a mere 100 feet away from the football field inside the camp in clear view. That means, anyone in the camp could stand by the wire and wonder where all those people go once they disappear underground. Football games were a regular occurance, even the British POW football team played at Birkenau while camp guards joined in. Tournaments were held. Yet, 100 feet away, the holocaust was happening. Why are there no reports of thousands of people lining up waiting to enter the chamber? It just seems to bizarre, coupled with the fact the Nazis were meant to be keeping this so secret no evidence survived after the war, why have it in clear view of everyone?

11. Judging by the gassing survivors, there seems to be no criteria for being gassed. The few people who claimed to have been gassed had no disabilities and there were thousands of children in the camps, why were these few selected for gassing while others of their age not? That also brings into question the validity of a 10 to 12 year old's experience from 70 years ago. Was there exaggeration?

12. The Nazis relied heavily on slave labour, which is why there was the killing of those that could not work. The claim that the Nazis would kill off their slave work force seems highly suspicious.

----------------------

Those are generally the arguments made. There's of course types of fuel, strange inefficiency on behalf of the Nazis, the fact you can do prison time for trying to investigate the sites yourself etc.

In my opinion it serves all 3 factions to promote the holocaust.

1. The West. During the end of the war Germany's infrastructure was nearly obliterated, according to the Red Cross little food or medicine was getting to the camps. Any food that did make it through surely went to the guards. Millions throughout Europe also died from disease, mainly Typhus. The peak death rate in Birkenua was 8,000 in 1 month believe, which is around the right number for the amount of ovens in place and morgue space, there is also evidence of planned expanture of the camp and another crematorium to go with the expected loss of life. I reckon the West knew the camp inmates would be collateral damage. It doesn't help that after 1 month of the allies reaching the camp they kept them quarantined for a month, creating further loss of life. The holocaust takes any blame away from the allies and soley focuses attention on the crimes of the Nazis.

2. The Soviets. The Soviets, who invaded Poland the same time as Hitler, were also ruthless in their occupation. Sending their opponents off to slave labour camps. They were desperate to project the image of glorious liberators and making people believe the tyranny of the Nazi regime was all over. We know of course what happened to the Polish people when they were liberated. It benefits the Soviets greatly to have the Nazis look worse than themselves.

3. The Zionists. After reading a book called 'The Transfer Agreement - the pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine' by Edwin Black, I found out a group of leading Zionists who were desperate to create a state of Israel, made a deal to help lift the world-wide Jewish boycott of German goods in exchange for 50,000 Jews to be sent to Palestine along with $100 million of their assets. It also talks about a meeting which took place in Geneva pre-WW2 between Zionist factions who agreed if any tradegy were to occur they would make the most of it to get sympathy for their cause. They wanted a high death count. There's also the matter of the religious connection. The Shoah(holocaust) is in the old testament and talks of a holocaust occurring before the state of Israel is conceived. During World War One a claim was made by the International Zionist Movement that a holocaust would occur in Germany if money was not donated to said group. Incidentally that money never went to starving families but to Bolsheviks in Russia. But any who, the holocaust claim has been made by religious groups throughout history and should be treated with caution.

I believe the motive for lies is there, coupled with next to no scientific investigation and persecution of those that try to investigate it who are not associated with the establishment, I just don't know how anyone could accept the entire thing for 100% fact without any doubt whatsoever unless you haven't looked into it.

[Charlie Primero]

I just don't know how anyone could accept the entire thing for 100% fact without any doubt whatsoever unless you haven't looked into it.

They don't. Any honest, moral person who actually takes the time to examine the whole thing is disgusted by the deception, dishonestly, lies, and vulgar political machinations surrounding the Holocaust.

The good thing is that it helps the person overcome the media techniques which promote uncritical acceptance of political agendas. They tend to be more skeptical when politicians crusade for more wars, more authoritarianism, and more killing. Propaganda techniques employing xenophobia, racism, nationalism, greed, and fear become less effective on them.

[Charlie Primero]

I think I'd side with Wikipedia and Skeptic Magazine on this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwi...entration_camp

C'mon Mick. You are better than that. I know you are.

[SR1419]

1. There's been no forensic investigation on the mass graves to prove cause of death was by gassing.

did you study this forensic evidence? Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/aus...rt/holes.shtml


So, are you just quibbling with the numbers?

or the fact that it happened at all??

[Mick]

C'mon Mick. You are better than that. I know you are.

Not really. I've not done any significant research into Holocaust revisionism, so I tend to think the aggregate sources that I've found to be reliable in the past (on other topics) are likely reliable in this instance. Without compelling evidence otherwise I have found the the majority opinion in a field is generally more accurate than fringe theories.

That does not mean I accept the "official story" without question, but it means I need some good evidence to look at other stories.

Were there gas chambers at Auschwitz? I don't see any good evidence to the contrary. Haarp's 12 points above seem mostly speculative and circumstantial.

[Charlie Primero]

I've not done any significant research into Holocaust revisionism, so I tend to think the aggregate sources that I've found to be reliable in the past (on other topics) are likely reliable in this instance.

While popular opinion may serve as a reliable guide on subjects such as chemtrails, bigfoots, or Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons, it can often lead one astray when applied to the Holocaust because that historical event has been so highly politicized and propagandized.

Studying the Holocaust is a fascinating exercise for understanding mass media, political manipulation, manufactured consent, and propaganda techniques. It's truly educational, but also a difficult task due to the mountains of bullcrap published by white supremacists and Jewish racists.

Here is an interesting old video where this Jewish kid shows the building claimed to be a homicidal gas chamber. After publishing his debunking he had to go into hiding due to death threats. He has been in hiding ever since.

Fast-forward this video to 16:30 where he shows evidence for the removed bathroom, the removed walls, added roof holes.



Like so many conspiracy theories, when you dig down to the actual evidence, the popular beliefs start to crumble.

[Mick]

So do you think that all the mainstream historians, and mainstream students of history, know this, and are covering it up?

[Charlie Primero]

No. I think they simply don't care very much.

Any mainstream historian who investigated the matter and learned the truth about certain aspects of the Holocaust would perform the cost:benefit ratio calculation to determine whether it was worth speaking about and conclude in under five seconds that it was not.

My daughter is a history teacher and regularly finds errors and mischaracterizations in her State-approved history books. Will she stand in front her students and correct them? Heck no. She likes having health insurance, and avoiding disciplinary hearings prompted by angry parents.

Therefore,
The Founding Fathers intended for America to be a Christian Nation.
Gunfights happened all the time in the Wild West.
Stockbrokers jumped out of windows during the Great Depression.
Soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat upon by hippies.

I personally am thrilled every time I discover something I believed for decades to be fact is actually false. This should happen several times per year to anyone who is intellectually honest and enjoys digging for truth.

[MikeC]

You should not confuse the far out ideas of holocaust revisionists with anything that is "actually" true.

[Mick]

The Founding Fathers intended for America to be a Christian Nation.
Gunfights happened all the time in the Wild West.
Stockbrokers jumped out of windows during the Great Depression.
Soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat upon by hippies.

But then these are things that the aggregate mainstream sources (historians, Snopes, and Wikipedia, not Fox News et al) consider to be false, like holocaust revisionism. So they don't seem like good examples.

[GuitKitty]

I've found this site to be a good resource for information about the Holocaust in general and refuting revistionists in particular: http://www.nizkor.org/

[Charlie Primero]

So they don't seem like good examples.

What would you consider good examples of things which are not true that the "aggregate mainstream" believes to be true?

[MikeC]

That columbus proved the world was round at a time when everyone thought it was flat!

[Mick]

What would you consider good examples of things which are not true that the "aggregate mainstream" believes to be true?

How wings work on planes.

[Charlie Primero]

How wings work on planes.

Are you being facetious?

[Mick]

No. Most people's understanding of how wings work is wrong, but the incorrect description has been taught for decades.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/h...s-really-work/

Content from external source:

It’s one of the most tenacious myths in physics and it frustrates aerodynamicists the world over. Now, University of Cambridge’s Professor Holger Babinsky has created a 1-minute video that he hopes will finally lay to rest a commonly used yet misleading explanation of how wings lift.

“A wing lifts when the air pressure above it is lowered. It’s often said that this happens because the airflow moving over the top, curved surface has a longer distance to travel and needs to go faster to have the same transit time as the air travelling along the lower, flat surface. But this is wrong,” he explained. “I don’t know when the explanation first surfaced but it’s been around for decades. You find it taught in textbooks, explained on television and even described in aircraft manuals for pilots. In the worst case, it can lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of some of the most important principles of aerodynamics.”

To show that this common explanation is wrong, Babinsky filmed pulses of smoke flowing around an aerofoil (the shape of a wing in cross-section). When the video is paused, it’s clear that the transit times above and below the wing are not equal: the air moves faster over the top surface and has already gone past the end of the wing by the time the flow below the aerofoil reaches the end of the lower surface.

“What actually causes lift is introducing a shape into the airflow, which curves the streamlines and introduces pressure changes – lower pressure on the upper surface and higher pressure on the lower surface,” clarified Babinsky, from the Department of Engineering. “This is why a flat surface like a sail is able to cause lift – here the distance on each side is the same but it is slightly curved when it is rigged and so it acts as an aerofoil. In other words, it’s the curvature that creates lift, not the distance.”
Babinsky is quick to stress that he is far from the only aerodynamicist who is frustrated by the perpetuation of the myth: colleagues have in the past expressed their concerns in print and online. Where he hopes his video will help debunk the myth once and for all is by providing a quick and visual demonstration to show that the most commonly used explanation cannot possibly be correct. The original video, created by Babinsky a few years ago using a wind tunnel, has now been re-edited in high quality with a voice-over in which he explains the phenomenon as it happens.

Babinsky’s research focuses on the fundamental aspects of aerodynamics as they relate to aircraft wings, Formula I racing cars, articulated lorries and wind turbines. One of his visions is to design a wing that will enable aircraft to fly faster and more efficiently. Using a massive wind tunnel within the Department of Engineering, Babinsky and his team have been modelling the shockwaves that are created on aircraft wings and that restrict the plane’s top speed.

The newly released video will support lectures Babinsky will be giving as part of a series of University of Cambridge Subject Masterclasses aimed at Year 12 school children: “It’s important to put out this video because when I give this lecture to school kids I start by giving the wrong explanation and asking who has heard it and every time 95% of the audience puts their hand up. Only a handful will know that it is wrong.”

[Mick]

But what you were asking me for examples of was something that I said generally did not happen. I find that the aggregate sources are generally correct, and again Wikipedia has the correct story here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(f...l_transit-time

Content from external source:

An explanation of lift frequently encountered in basic or popular sources is the equal transit-time theory. Equal transit-time states that because of the longer path of the upper surface of an airfoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to catch up with the air flowing around the bottom, i.e. the parcels of air that are divided at the leading edge and travel above and below an airfoil must rejoin when they reach the trailing edge. Bernoulli's Principle is then cited to conclude that since the air moves faster on the top of the wing the air pressure must be lower. This pressure difference pushes the wing up.^[67]However, equal transit time is not accurate^[68][69][70] and the fact that this is not generally the case can be readily observed.^[71][72] Although it is true that the air moving over the top of a wing generating lift does move faster, there is no requirement for equal transit time. In fact the air moving over the top of an airfoil generating lift moves much faster than the equal transit theory would imply.^[6]
The assertion that the air must arrive simultaneously at the trailing edge is sometimes referred to as the "Equal Transit-Time Fallacy".^{[73][74][75][76]}

[Charlie Primero]

I apologize Mick. I assumed most people knew how airfoils create lift from watch cable science TV. I had no idea most people did not know. For decades before the internet I ridiculed people who perpetuated the urban legend that hot water freezes faster than cold water.

I still run into the "Vietnam vets were spat upon" myth all the time. People become highly emotional and almost violent over that one. Kinda scary.

My brother-in-law was in the 173rd Airborne in Vietnam. He's having NONE of it. His photo appears in this video:



We don't talk about it.

[Mick]

I apologize Mick. I assumed most people knew how airfoils create lift from watch cable science TV. I had no idea most people did not know.

The problem was that cable science TV has historically used the equal transit time fallacy.

Everyone falls for urban legends at some time. But my point here is that it's hard for an urban legend or misconception to survive in Wikipedia. If things are factually wrong they are corrected. If there is dispute, then the dispute is reported upon. If things are uncertain, then that uncertainly is reflected.

[Charlie Primero]

But my point here is that it's hard for an urban legend or misconception to survive in Wikipedia. If things are factually wrong they are corrected. If there is dispute, then the dispute is reported upon. If things are uncertain, then that uncertainly is reflected.

This is true most of the time, but not always true. Wikipedia is biased precisely because it reflects the majority opinion.

I ran into this regarding the obscure martial art of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ). Back in the late 1990's the vast majority of martial artists considered Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu a vulgar, bastardized, fly-by-night, corruption of martial arts. Wikipedia editors in the martial arts section actively discriminated against BJJ. They tried to deny us a tab. They tried so say it was merely a sub-set of some other martial art. Their bias was obvious, intentional, and malicious.

Wikipedia does recognize, and admit to this Systemic Bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias

The fact that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz is a great example of why we should always be vigilant against falling for the Appeal to Popularity and Appeal to Belief fallacies.

[BRoI]

The official Soviet report on Auschwitz submitted to the Nuremberg Trials is USSR-008.1

Two of the signatories to this were:

Nikolay Nilovich Burdenko
Nikolai Ivanovitch Lomakin

This document is cited as evidence in Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews, the standard work on the Holocaust.2

Another report submitted to the main Nuremberg Trial, was USSR-54, about the slaughter of 16,000 Poles in the Katyn Forrest.3

Two of the signatories to this were:

Nikolay Nilovich Burdenko
Nikolai Ivanovitch Lomakin

In the Indictment of the main Nuremberg trial, the Germans were accused of perpetrating this massacre, the Soviets produces several witnesses who testified at Nuremberg about how the Nazis killed the Poles in 1941. Document USSR-54 reads:

The mass shooting of the Polish prisoners of war in the Katyn forest was carried out by the German armed forces under the cover name 'Staff 537 of the Construction Battalion,' led by Lt. Col. Arnes and his associates Lt. Reckst and Lt. Hott.

But the Germans didn't kill these Poles in 1941, the NKVD had killed them in 1940. Everyone knew it, Goebbels had launched a huge propaganda campaign following the discovery of the bodies in early 1943. The Germans invited physicians from 12 countries to inspect the site, and it led to the exiled Polish government in London breaking off ties with Moscow. But at the Nuremberg trial, the Germans got the blame for it, although this was one accusation levelled at them they managed to successfully prove false, and the charge was quietly dropped.

In 1990 Gorbachev admitted to the world, what everyone already knew. Here's Stalin's & Kaganovich's signature on the order (The Soviets really did keep great records on their acts of genocide).

The point being, USSR-54 is a pack of lies, utter lies, from start to finish. A NKVD massacre pinned on the Nazis. And two of the men who signed this pack of lies, also signed the official Soviet report on Auschwitz, USSR-008, which is cited in the most highly acclaimed work on the Holocaust.


1. German translation of USSR-8, found in the IMT Blue Series Vol. 39, p.241
2. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H...R-8%22&f=false
3. German translation of USSR-54, found in the IMT Blue Series Vol. 39, p.290

IMT docs found thru: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_L...rg_trials.html