 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I saw it about two years ago. It was nothing short of fasinating.
It involved a maker of death chamber devices (gas and electric chair).He was using bogus science to actually try to prove that Holocaust victims were NOT gassed. In they end he couldn't understand why the scientific community disregarded his claims. It illustrates how a confused person can get wrapped up in a web of their own making. How they use their own faulty logic to explain events they don't truly comprehend.
I can't rememer the name of this infamous person or the name of this documentary--If anyone knows, please help me out on this one.
mp
Follow Ups:
The documentary shows what it means to be human.We think that we know a little about something, and then we overextend our reach with that knowledge.
We apply our good beliefs of right and justness in dangerously unsettling ways. It was very discomforting to me how Dr. Leuchter discusses "decency" within the execution process. He also said that he defended the Holocaust revisionists because he believes in freedom of speech. (They were being prosecuted under Canadian censorship laws that wouldn't work in the U.S.) It's like, yes I belive in those principles too, but somthing's amiss in the outcome.
Just look at this Web site, as an example - think about how we discuss audio technology or the First Amendment, and how often we fall short in the way that Dr. Leuchter does without realizing it.
look at this thread on a "MYTH versus FACT" audio Web site
"How they use their own faulty logic to explain events they don't truly comprehend." You mean, the "scientific" community...?clark
I am talking about the misguided person the documentary is about.
Ruined his own life/career to actually try and prove there were no death camp gassings. In the end, you don't feel sorry for him, he had several oportunitites to detour from the path he was on, but didn't. So clouded is this guy's mind, or tainted, he can't understand why he is no longer taken seriously.
mp
...so there was considerable coverage of him. Now I haven't seen the movie, but judging from the comments I've read here, it bears little resemblance to the facts of the situation. But what do you expect of a filmmaker who calls his subject "Dr. Death"?clark
You're trying to form an opinion without having seen the movie. See my post above about what the movie means to me.
Why would he need to read your post to respond to your arguments? He doesn't need to have first-hand knowledge of something in order to critique it. He has special mind powers.mp
He's called "Mr. Death" because his entire career was based around designing better execution equipment.It's actually a brilliant movie. In typical Morris style, Leuchter is allowed to talk for minutes at a time without interruption. It's a little creepy because Morris interviews his subjects using a teleprompter (Morris's face appears on a two way mirror over the camera, so the subject looks directly into the camera when he's talking to Morris). So it seems like Leuchter is talking directly at you, the viewer.
Definitely worth renting.
It's apples & oranges, dude; science has absolutely nothing to do with revisionism! As you should know, those who don't want to believe in scientific evidence often employ pseudo-science to promote their agendas. I've seen this film myself and it is indeed fascinating on several levels. In some ways it's analogous to watching a VH-1 documentary of __________ (you-name-it, fill in the blank) band's stratospheric rise to fame followed by a "nightmare descent into drug and alcohol abuse." Errol Morris (Mr. Death) was certainly a mixed bag and unique character.AuPh
That's a good one! Science (true science, anyway) is *constantly* revising its ideas, to arrive at better truth.So too is history. The operating definition of revisionism is, "To bring written history into accord with the facts." But woe to most of those who try!
clark
No one faults his ideas, just on principle alone (but it is a good starting point). His "methods" are flawed. They are scientifically flawed.Maybe you should see the documentary before commenting on it.
mp
Easy for a mere moviegoer to say! But do you mean, the locations chosen? His sampling criteria? The physical analytical techniques later employed? The gas-decay math? The nature of the molecules found?What?
clark
are you certain you didn't see this documentary?
"a mere moviegoer."Here' I'll Anoint Thee Reviewer, you are now Wiser Than The Rest And Fit To Comment On Things You Have Not Seen Nor Read.
*poof*
KP
There are two entirely different contexts for revision dependent upon the criteria one chooses. The legitimate criteria is based upon "new verifiable evidence" while doctrinaire revisionism is based upon reinterpreting evidence or "creating" new evidence to fit preconceived notions in order to alter the established facts and rewrite history/science.> > > "Science (true science, anyway) is *constantly* revising it's ideas, to arrive at better truth." < < <
"Better truth" or more factually accurate? ;^)
AuPh
Oh, now we have a whole new category! How many more must there be?Nor do these objections address the physical evidence. It will not do, simply to assert that because it accords with preconceived notions it must *ipso facto* be wrong.
Instead of "better truth" BTW, I should have said "higher truth".
clark
BTW, not to suggest that you're blowing smoke, but some of us might be curious as to what you mean by "higher" truth as well! ;^)AuPh
I clearly stated that I had not seen the film. My sources are all in print.And you know what "higher truth" means, however unwilling you may be to admit to such a condition.
clark
Not to be critical of your attempted liguistic exercise here, but if you haven't seen the film then poetic waxing over the minutiae (i.e., the meaning of revisionism) seems a trifle moot, does it not? Of course everyone's entitled to express an opinion, whether informed or originating from one's nether regions, but it would behoove you to investigate the source material at least once before drawing critical conclusions or playing semantics games, don't you think?Respectfully,
AuPh
I think your right on the money!
mp
I personally think it was a public safety feature done when tourist traffic came through.One coukldn't defend its existance nor its size. So, he ends up accusing Jews of mass suicide.
Now, if you don't mind me asking, why do you ask? I'm still trying to forget such inhumane stupidity.
If one were forced at gun point to defend Hitler, we could point at Stalin. His antisemitic genocide dwarfed Hitler. Plus, our American hands aren't exactly clean as we knowingly refused import of Germany's Jewish deportation.
» moderate Mart £ « Planar Asylum
Dr. Death airs periodically on the Independent Film Channel, whci is where I caought it again this summer.
More Errol Morris. A Brief History of Time and Fast, Cheap and Out of Control. For some reason I keep missing Dr. Death but have seen snippets. Isn't he the guy who based his ideas on analysis of bricks from the gas chambers?I hope they'll show my personal favorite Gates of Heaven.
Have you seen the Julian Hobbs film Collectors?
.
.
Is it this one by Errol Morris?
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
