General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

[abaddon]

Gee, I thought this was pretty clear ...

Think of it this way .... once 3 or 4 people who have reported seeing UFOs, or little green men, or spaceships from Mars, have been debunked, mainly for lack of a shred of physical evidence, there is no need to proceed to numbers 5 thru 50000.

Why does that not apply to your claims?

 

[dudalb]

I hope people here are arguing with Saggy for the benefit of third parties,not in hopes they can convince his he Is wrong.......

 

[Saggy]

This statistical principle - the law of small numbers - is why in research, it is always good to stop after sampling 3-4 data points out of 50,000: whatever you get from the first few is sure to hold up over the next 45,000 or so.

I didn't choose the sample, Spielberg did. And it wasn't a random sample, he chose the best and most convincing. And, he produced four or five complete idiots whose lies are exposed in Hunt's movie.

It's as if he chose the most absurd, as I recall, one who pooped diamonds, one who witnessed a Nazi kill three children with one bullet, two who escaped from inside gas chambers, and one whose sister was experimented on by a Nazi doctor performing a routine urinalysis.

How could Spielberg publish this idiocy? That's a real question, and I have a theory as to the answer.

Then, why did the whole hoax establishment laud Spielberg to the heavens for this complete and degenerate travesty?

That is, Spielberg chose the most idiotic of the lot. Even when the idiocy was exposed in his own movie, e.g. the sister of the urinalysis victim, he proceeded.

Folks, that chuzpah. And, it's chuzpah to defend that idiocy here on ISF

 

[smartcooky]

Saggy, if the Six Million people weren't murdered by the Nazis, then

1. What happened to them?
2. Where did they all go?
3. Why haven't any of their families heard from a single one of them?
4. Why haven't they claimed compensation, as actual survivors did?
5. Why haven't they claimed their possessions back?
6. Why did they not return to their former jobs & lives

Can you answer these questions?

If your claim is that the Holocaust is a big lie, then you MUST answer these questions; you must account for the verifiable disappearance of six million people. If you cannot answer these questions , using actual evidence to prove your answers to be correct, then its impossible for you to substantial your claim. .

 

[Jeffk 1970]

I hope people here are arguing with Saggy for the benefit of third parties,not in hopes they can convince his he Is wrong.......

It's something to do when I have a few minutes at work.

 

[Hans]

once 3 or 4 people who have reported seeing UFOs, or little green men, or spaceships from Mars, have been debunked, mainly for lack of a shred of physical evidence, there is no need to proceed to numbers 5 thru 50000.

I'm sure we can find that number of liars telling war stories from Vietnam, WWII, Korea etc., does that invalidate the history of those wars?

I had to send that sentence you wrote to a number of people because it's just so deliciously inane!

 

[abaddon]

I didn't choose the sample, Spielberg did. And it wasn't a random sample, he chose the best and most convincing. And, he produced four or five complete idiots whose lies are exposed in Hunt's movie.

It's as if he chose the most absurd, as I recall, one who pooped diamonds, one who witnessed a Nazi kill three children with one bullet, two who escaped from inside gas chambers, and one whose sister was experimented on by a Nazi doctor performing a routine urinalysis.

How could Spielberg publish this idiocy? That's a real question, and I have a theory as to the answer.

Then, why did the whole hoax establishment laud Spielberg to the heavens for this complete and degenerate travesty?

That is, Spielberg chose the most idiotic of the lot. Even when the idiocy was exposed in his own movie, e.g. the sister of the urinalysis victim, he proceeded.

Folks, that chuzpah. And, it's chuzpah to defend that idiocy here on ISF

Wow. You really believe Hollywood is history. That tells everyone everything one needs to know.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I didn't choose the sample, Spielberg did.

Non sequitur.

Besides, Spiellberg is not a scholar or researcher of the Holocaust. You're afraid of the work scholars do.

And it wasn't a random sample, he chose the best and most convincing.

If he thinks that, he's wrong - and I have no idea whether he thinks that or on what basis he thinks he'd know. He's a filmmaker and producer, fss.

How could Spielberg publish this idiocy?

I have no idea. I don't follow Spielberg. I spend my time with documents and other sources, reading research, and studying scholarly works.

That's a real question, and I have a theory as to the answer.

Whatever it is, it is about Spielberg, not the Nazi mass murder of Jews and other crimes.

Then, why did the whole hoax establishment laud Spielberg to the heavens for this complete and degenerate travesty?

I don't know what the "hoax establishment" is - I am pretty sure that many people who study the Holocaust are glad for Spielberg's funding an oral history archive. Scholars get to study it and compare the testimonies to other evidence. That said, these testimonies are by far not the best evidence for the mass murder of the Jews.

What's funny is how you bring up that which no one here has referenced - and are utterly petrified to discuss the evidence we do reference.

That is, Spielberg chose the most idiotic of the lot. Even when the idiocy was exposed in his own movie, e.g. the sister of the urinalysis victim, he proceeded.

Folks, that chuzpah. And, it's chuzpah to defend that idiocy here on ISF

I think you are having a conversation with yourself. I certainly don't know what you're talking about.

Krzepicki? Rabinowicz? Too chicken, eh. They weren't interviewed by Spielberg.

 

[LemmyCaution]

It's something to do when I have a few minutes at work.

For me, decidedly to make information and sources available and to learn from others about information and sources. Saggy's irrelevant. He's also a relic of a long past era of denial. You can see it in the links he posts and arguments he uses - he's stuck in a decade or 15 years ago.

Not a single person here has ever cited or referenced Zisblatt, Saggy's apparent main source for hoaxing, yet he goes on and on as though we base our views about these dreadful events on her. That's either deeply weird or appallingly dishonest on his part.

 

[Jeffk 1970]

This format is a bit clunky, I'd rather post sources at Skeptics where it's easier to find.

 

[Jeffk 1970]

It's also hard to keep this straight when Saggy is all over the board.

 

[Nessie]

It proves that the entire holohoax establishment, including Yad Vashem, the USHMM, every academic at Cornell, every academic in the US, every journalist, et. al., that actively supports Zisblatt by sponsoring her talks, or that passively supports her by not denouncing her degenerate lies, is complicit in the greatest and most depraved and destructive hoax in history

The real hoax, is that of the alleged mass survival of millions of people, the AR camps were not death camps and no mass killing took place at places such as Babi Yar.

 

[LemmyCaution]

This format is a bit clunky, I'd rather post sources at Skeptics where it's easier to find.

I just clip 'em when I come across 'em. Yeah, the format is nutzo, but it is what we got, eh? Different people contribute different things, e.g., Nick's three versions of 102-R or Elagabalus's link to the air mapping of Babi Yar. Good stuff.

 

[Nessie]

I hope people here are arguing with Saggy for the benefit of third parties,not in hopes they can convince his he Is wrong.......

Yes, same with other places and other denialists. Sometimes there is a break through and a denialist will finally accept their inability to evidence mass survival is verification that, no matter how much they disbelieve, mass murder is evidenced and did take place.

But mostly the likes of Saggy is used to show how badly evidenced and argued denialism is.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Just to note: there have been some high level defections/apostasies - Hunt, BRoI (sort of), Cole (sort of), Jason Myers . . . some of these changes of mind came about through debate, including on forums like this one. More common, of course, is deniers fading away in frustration, embarrassment, waning interest . . .

 

[Saggy]

More common, of course, is deniers fading away in frustration, embarrassment, waning interest . . .

You've missed the big one .... most denialists on most boards are banned. On this Clayton Moore, Thunder, these are two that I found out by happenstance, maybe someone should make a list .....

 

[LemmyCaution]

You've missed the big one .... most denialists on most boards are banned. On this Clayton Moore, Thunder, these are two that I found out by happenstance, maybe someone should make a list .....

Nonsense, when deniers are banned here or at other forums, it is for violating the board's rules, not for expressing their views.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You've missed the big one .... most denialists on most boards are banned. On this Clayton Moore, Thunder, these are two that I found out by happenstance, maybe someone should make a list .....

And stop moaning and whining and tell us how Krzepicki and Rabinowicz are liars, as you charged.

Here you go, I helped you:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogs...evisionist-fabrication-of-myth-of_26.html?m=1

Why don't you read those links? It even summarizes the denier positions on these two gentlemen.

Then, come back and let us know what are lies.

 

[Saggy]

Are we honestly back to that? You didn't fare very well five years ago when you repeated the exact same crap the last time around.

Same crap? Yep, sure enough.

You cannot identify one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holohoax and describe, right here on this thread, his/her testimony. If you can, please do.

And, even better than that, how about the Bradley Smith challenge, identify one person gassed at Auschwitz and provide proof of the fact. Or, let's say, provide the evidence for the fact.

It's on you, or any of the other worthies reading the challenge.

And, needless to say, don't forget to describe the physical evidence supporting your claims, otherwise we'll have to file them in the UFO category

 

[LemmyCaution]

You cannot identify one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holohoax and describe, right here on this thread, his/her testimony. If you can, please do.

Hey Saggy, I did this earlier. But to help you now so that you don't hurt yourself trying to Google the Treblinka testimonies mentioned, here's some helpful reference information (you probably don't need it, given all the research you've done but just in case . . . )

Abraham Krzepicki
* Alexander Donat, The Death Camp Treblinka: A Documentary (New York: Holocaust Library, 1979), “Eighteen Days in Treblinka,” pp 77-146 (sometimes called “the long testimony” and “A person escaped from Treblinka . . . Conversations with returnees,” see also AR II/299)
* Joseph Kermish, To Live with Honor and Die with Honor (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1986), “Reminiscences of a Treblinka Escapee,” pp 710-716 (sometimes called “the short testimony,” see also AR II/295)

Jacob Rabinowicz
* Hillel Seidman, The Warsaw Ghetto Diaries (Southfield, MI: Targum Press, 1997), pp 101-107
* Abraham Lewin, A Cup of Tears: A Diary of the Warsaw Ghetto (New York and Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988) (two diary entries on Rabinowicz: 25 September and 27 September 1942), pp 185-186

Jeffk linked to an article at HC blog describing the value of both testimonies, showing that both are credible.