Merged General Holocaust denial discussion Part IV

Hans said:
He doesn't actually read anything or respond to what is written. I hate to say it but it looks like he transmuted into a troll and is not a serious person trying to debate something.
Click to expand...

He didn't transmute into a troll, he was a troll since the very beginning...
 
LemmyCaution said:
You don't want to debate Majdanek with me. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

I don't want to debate anything with you ! However, you're practically the only non-zero content poster among the hoaxers, so, I gotta live with it, otherwise I'd be talking to myself !

But, there is no more hoax at Majdanek, the numbers for the museum and the 'revisionists' are about the same. What do you know, they used the camp records and came up with comparable numbers. Nothing to debate unless you want to come with a few idiotic lies out of pure habit.

The only bad news for the deniers is that we can't point out the absurdity of the hoax gas chamber at Majdanek. Another gas chamber with a window, not to mention openings for the DeGesch(?) fumigation equipment, not to mentions a gas chamber withing a gas chamber. Totally dissected by Hunt in his Majdanek vid.

There is way too much data at Auschwitz too, and the records are now public, so the hoax there is on its last legs.

All you got left is Wiernik and the Reinhard camps ...... :D
 
Argumemnon said:
Saggy, what about Rudolf Höss?
Click to expand...

The degenerate absurdity of the hoax is well illustrated by Hoess's torture and 'confession'.

Hoess was by his own account the grand architect of the hoax, working with Eichmann to find a method of killing the Jews, etc. Yet he was not tried at Nuremberg, he testified as a defense witness ! How freaking absurd can it get?

At the trial his affidavit was read into the record in which he 'confessed' to gassing 2 million Jews and killing another .5 mill by other means.

Here is what he wrote about the affidavit after the trial ...

"I was treated terribly by the [British] Field Security Police. I was dragged to Heide and, of all places, to the same military barracks from which I had been released eight months before by the British. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought that I had constantly used it to whip the prisoners."

The fact that Hoess's 'testimony' is still cited as evidence of the hoax indicates the chutzpah and total depravity of the hoax establishment. These people are liars the likes of which the world has never seen.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
I don't want to debate anything with you ! However, you're practically the only non-zero content poster among the hoaxers, so, I gotta live with it, otherwise I'd be talking to myself !

But, there is no more hoax at Majdanek, the numbers for the museum and the 'revisionists' are about the same. What do you know, they used the camp records and came up with comparable numbers. Nothing to debate unless you want to come with a few idiotic lies out of pure habit.

The only bad news for the deniers is that we can't point out the absurdity of the hoax gas chamber at Majdanek. Another gas chamber with a window, not to mention openings for the DeGesch(?) fumigation equipment, not to mentions a gas chamber withing a gas chamber. Totally dissected by Hunt in his Majdanek vid.

There is way too much data at Auschwitz too, and the records are now public, so the hoax there is on its last legs.

All you got left is Wiernik and the Reinhard camps ...... :D
Click to expand...
Clearly you don't want to debate, or even discuss, with anyone here.

You didn't answer my question about Hilberg. Noted.

There is no gas chamber with a window at Majdanek.
 
Saggy said:
The degenerate absurdity of the hoax is well illustrated by Hoess's torture and 'confession'.

Hoess was by his own account the grand architect of the hoax, working with Eichmann to find a method of killing the Jews, etc. Yet he was not tried at Nuremberg, he testified as a defense witness ! How freaking absurd can it get?

At the trial his affidavit was read into the record in which he 'confessed' to gassing 2 million Jews and killing another .5 mill by other means.

Here is what he wrote about the affidavit after the trial ...

"I was treated terribly by the [British] Field Security Police. I was dragged to Heide and, of all places, to the same military barracks from which I had been released eight months before by the British. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought that I had constantly used it to whip the prisoners."

The fact that Hoess's 'testimony' is still cited as evidence of the hoax indicates the chutzpah and total depravity of the hoax establishment. These people are liars the likes of which the world has never seen.
Click to expand...




^
This!

Is all wrong!
 
Saggy said:
I don't want to debate anything with you !
Click to expand...

Then WTF are you here?


However, you're practically the only non-zero content poster among the hoaxers, so, I gotta live with it, otherwise I'd be talking to myself !
Click to expand...

You are talking to yourself.

Saggy, I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation with you.....but you need to respond instead of posting more goofy pictures.
 
Saggy said:
The degenerate absurdity of the hoax is well illustrated by Hoess's torture and 'confession'.

Hoess was by his own account the grand architect of the hoax, working with Eichmann to find a method of killing the Jews, etc. Yet he was not tried at Nuremberg, he testified as a defense witness ! How freaking absurd can it get?

At the trial his affidavit was read into the record in which he 'confessed' to gassing 2 million Jews and killing another .5 mill by other means.

Here is what he wrote about the affidavit after the trial ...

"I was treated terribly by the [British] Field Security Police. I was dragged to Heide and, of all places, to the same military barracks from which I had been released eight months before by the British. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought that I had constantly used it to whip the prisoners."

The fact that Hoess's 'testimony' is still cited as evidence of the hoax indicates the chutzpah and total depravity of the hoax establishment. These people are liars the likes of which the world has never seen.
Click to expand...

His testimony matches other testimony, also he was apparently comfortable enough to discuss his treatment by the British quite freely. Does not sound like someone who was forced to tell lies to me.
 
The Höss almost-discussion reminds me that Saggy owes us an account of the torture of the Einsatzgruppen trial defendants.
 
Saggy said:
Which, of course, is why my challenge to name one credible Jewish eyewitness and summarize/discuss their testimony, along with any corroborating testimony, and and physical or documentary evidence that supports the testimony, goes unanswered (except for link farms of course).
Click to expand...
Done. Weeks ago.
Indeed there was a link to something I wrote for HC blog. Yes, you'd have to be willing to know about Krzepicki and Rabinwoicz - or to read that piece - to have anything to say about their testimonies. No, you don't want to hear which witnesses people posting here find valuable and why - which must be why you refuse to discuss Krzepicki and Rabinowicz or even read what I've said about them.
 
Last edited:
LemmyCaution said:
Done. Weeks ago.
Indeed there was a link to something I wrote for HC blog. Yes, you'd have to be willing to know about Krzepicki and Rabinwoicz - or to read that piece - to have anything to say about their testimonies. No, you don't want to hear which witnesses people posting here find valuable and why - which must be why you refuse to discuss Krzepicki and Rabinowicz or even read what I've said about them.
Click to expand...

Chutzpah.
 
LemmyCaution said:
Meaningless snark - you're still dodging the challenge, and not just about Krzepicki and Rabinowiciz, but also about Sacowicz, Schmid, Szmajzner et al.
Click to expand...

He lost the argument months ago, he's just trolling now.
 
Loss Leader said:
What would you consider evidence?
Click to expand...

His position is that anything that is evidence of genocide are lies. So basically he demanding information he has already pre-dismissed, so he can deny it again.

Pretty much just trolling now.
 
Evidence: the available body of facts or information which, when presented, Saggy persistently refuses to acknowledge, let alone discuss
 
Punchlines from above:

First, the Majdanek gas chamber window:
Saggy said:
. . . the absurdity of the hoax gas chamber at Majdanek. Another gas chamber with a window . . .
Click to expand...
Thanks to Denying History, who posts at SSF for this one:
And just one more laugh from Holohoax101.

This is a picture of the 'gas chamber' at Majdanek, and yes, that is an unbarred window
Majdanek.jpg
Click to expand...

And just to show the good old window from the inside of the gas chamber.

W1IeNA3.jpg


And here is the link if you want to see the inside of the gas chamber here.

799px-Majdanek_GasChamber_Pano.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Majdanek_GasChamber_Pano.jpg
Click to expand...
I adjusted the size of the photo with the red arrow from what D-H posted at SSF so it'd fit here; the words inside the red arrow read, "This is the so-called window of the Majdanek Gas chamer… in reality its a light"

D-H also has posted this photo of the same chamber "with the light off":

gngE2St.jpg


Second: Hilberg's estimated Majdanek Jewish death toll
Saggy said:
. . . it's a little suprising that you'd bring up my prior comments on Majdanek, the one camp I've visited, by chance before I was a denier, since the hoax has completely collapsed there . . .

[IMGW=500]https://i.imgur.com/2B86AqR.jpg[/IMGW]
Click to expand...
I asked Saggy for Hilberg's 1961 estimate for the Jewish death toll at Majdanek. Saggy didn't answer - Hilberg's estimate ruins the misleading story he tried to tell with a graph which omitted Hilberg's estimate - or any estimates of Jewish deaths. So what did Hilberg calculate in 1961 as the number of Jewish deaths at Majdanek? minimum 50,000.

Similar to the estimate of Scheffler (1985) 50-60,000.

But a little lower than what the museum today estimates as the Jewish death toll: rounded to 60,000 (T. Kranz estimate, Majdanek State Museum)

(Kranz's estimate for the total number of deaths at Majdanek is 79,000. I do not know that Hilberg made an estimate of the total number of deaths at the camp. Marszalek 1994, who badly overestimated the total death toll in the camp, estimated 80,000 Jewish deaths.)

There's no doubt that there has been disagreement over the death toll at Majdanek, including the number of Jewish deaths; there is also no doubt, however, that there has not been a steady progression of lower estimates of the latter - rather, there have been disagreement and research to resolve that disagreement. The museum's current estimate of 60,000 Jewish death includes gassing and shooting killings described in Kranz's book, The Extermination of Jews at Majdanek Concentration Camp.

Finally, Saggy's "revisionist" number is universally rejected, with Kranz estimating about double that number of total deaths at Majdanek.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Click to expand...


What evidence would cause you to believe the proposition was true and valid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom