Holocaust Denial Videos

[Questioninggeller]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

The point in the video is that even an acknowledged holocaust scholar says that 95 percent of the cans of Zyklon B were used for delousing. It's possible to use that and not agree with it. To paraphrase: "Even so and so says something that is very close to my view."--it's like that.

So you're not going to answer the question why you deny that figure (despite saying its "valid" and it being cited in your video)? You're just going to give red herrings even though I'm the only one talking about these videos.

Minor point:
As I already pointed to you, he is not a "Holocaust scholar" and even you admit you don't know his background. His book isn't widely circulated and it's unknown if scholars (you know, historians) accept these figures. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

 

[beachnut]

I am a holocaust denier, but open to your view.

...

You prefer lies and not skeptical critical thinking when you adopt the dirt dumb holocaust denier mentality. Why would you post at place with the exact opposite of your method of thinking?

It takes willful ignorance to push holocaust denial.

You broke rule one, don't believe in dirt dumb ideas promoted by moron neoNAZIs.

Pick your favorite delusion or lie from the videos and defend it in a post. You are wrong and if you research the subject you will see you promote a moronic lie. The funny part is you are open to what? Pushing your failed videos?

What a bunch of pathetic videos? The web page tells how no one will debunk his NAZI junk ideas. There is no need to debunk pure delusions. Where did all the people the NAZIs did not kill go in your denial delusion?

My dad was in the 101st; you are debunked by my father and now you are a NAZI apologist unable to express the points you think are correct in your failed denial videos. Where did all the dead people go? Were they worked to death in the work camps? 6 million worked to death? Was some of the work testing gas chambers? You are sick.

 

[Nick Terry]

Hi Nick Terry:
Thanks for your response. But if you don't believe in videos as a communication, scholarly medium, and refuse to watch the videos at holocaustDenialVideos.com, why are you bothering posting on this thread?

Once again you are confusing the videos with the subject matter. I and no doubt others are probably quite happy to discuss the subject matter - I made just such an invitation in a post above - but for some reason you seem to want to drag things back to the videos. I'm beginning to think that you are in fact incapable of arguing the subject in a live arena, which is what internet forums are supposedly about.

So if that's the case, me bothering to post in this thread has helped expose this. The longer you go on bleating about the videos and avoiding discussing the subject, the better.

I might also add that your apparent inability to discuss the subject of BST is of-a-piece with the apparent inability of the entire revisionist community to organise a formal debate team to take on the precise subject of those videos.

Hi Horatius:
Yes, there are rebuttals written by well-informed people. But that's how knowledge works: you read what they have to say, and then what someone else has to say, and form your own opinion. The site holocaustcontroversies, or NIZKOR et al. have never rebutted the video Buchenwald. They pretend it doesn't exist though it's been out for years. So your argument doesn't really work for that video. And there may be a reason those sites haven't rebutted those videos: Perhaps they can't.

Perhaps they can't be bothered, is the reason already given. But maybe if the earthly representative of denierbud can express the gist of the argument in his own words, then the JREF forum could discuss these ideas.

Hi Mondial,

Yes, that's true. The goat skin lampshade was displayed at Buchenwald for 45 years, and East German schoolchildren were shown it. It's still at Buchenwald but not on public display, though a curator, Harry Stein has access to it there. That lampshade isn't the lampshade in the Buchenwald video. The one in the video is "just a basic lampshade" as the video states.

People offer links to rebuttal websites, but even holocaustcontroversies has never tried to rebut the video Nazi Shrunken Heads or "Buchenwald." Yet look how many people on this forum have said that the links to rebuttals have been offered and thus there's no need for them to watch the video.

Try using your own words. I don't see what's so hard about grasping this simple concept, especially on a skeptic's forum.

 

[Nick Terry]

So you're not going to answer the question why you deny that figure (despite saying its "valid" and it being cited in your video)? You're just going to give red herrings even though I'm the only one talking about these videos.

Minor point:
As I already pointed to you, he is not a "Holocaust scholar" and even you admit you don't know his background. His book isn't widely circulated and it's unknown if scholars (you know, historians) accept these figures. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

Many of Pressac's arguments are widely accepted by historians of Auschwitz, but the 95% of Zyklon being used for delousing claim is not one of them, smacks of rhetorical hyperbole, and was not accompanied by a detailed demonstration of his reasoning. Van Pelt demonstrated more probable percentages in his affidavit for the Irving appeal, online over at THHP.

 

[gtc]

If I saw a video showing Uri Geller bending spoons, and asked people's opinion on it here, I wouldn't be getting the hard time which I'm getting from people like you. Yet it's the same thing, different subject.

You don't see anything different between a claim that Uri Geller can bend spoons and a claim that the Holocaust never happened?


Why don't you make a specific claim that can be addressed. Why not list out point by point what you believe and what evidence you have.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Many of Pressac's arguments are widely accepted by historians of Auschwitz, but the 95% of Zyklon being used for delousing claim is not one of them, smacks of rhetorical hyperbole, and was not accompanied by a detailed demonstration of his reasoning. Van Pelt demonstrated more probable percentages in his affidavit for the Irving appeal, online over at THHP.

I told Budly (in post #32 of this thread) to read Robert Jan van Pelt's book The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial.

But I am interested in why Budly cites something while he rejects it. I want to know what evidence he has to reject it while saying its a "valid" source.

 

[Nick Terry]

I told Budly (in post #32 of this thread) to read Robert Jan van Pelt's book The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial.

He doesn't even have to make any money for Indiana University Press, he can read Pelt's trial report online as well as the appeals report. Strangely, few Holocaust deniers ever appear to have done either.

But I am interested in why Budly cites something while he rejects it. I want to know what evidence he has to reject it while saying its a "valid" source.

That is the $64,000 question, and if you can get an answer, then students of CT logic will appreciate learning the findings, since the exact mechanism by which a CT decontextualises information is still something of a mystery.

 

[Horatius]

Hi Horatius:

Yes, there are rebuttals written by well-informed people. But that's how knowledge works: you read what they have to say, and then what someone else has to say, and form your own opinion. The site holocaustcontroversies, or NIZKOR et al. have never rebutted the video Buchenwald. They pretend it doesn't exist though it's been out for years. So your argument doesn't really work for that video. And there may be a reason those sites haven't rebutted those videos: Perhaps they can't.

But there's also the doctrine of "Consider the Source" to consider. As Nick Terry, in his above (Nominated, btw) post shows, no other work presented by this person has any merit. Why would you have me suppose that, contrary to all previous attempts, this time he finally got it right?

You're the one trying to get me to spend some of my all-to-rare free time watching this video, instead of making NWO Kitty comics, drinking beer, playing with my kitten, or masturbating. What exactly motivates me to choose the video? You're asking me to give you my time, I'm asking you to give me a reason.

 

[Horatius]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

The point in the video is that even an acknowledged holocaust scholar says that 95 percent of the cans of Zyklon B were used for delousing. It's possible to use that and not agree with it. To paraphrase: "Even so and so says something that is very close to my view."--it's like that.

I think you miss the point QuestioningGeller is trying to make.

If you believe, as you do, that this number is in error, why do you assume the error is that the number is too low, rather than too high? If his information is faulty, either case is just as likely. Why do you insist on the interpretation that supports your beliefs? To support such an interpretation, you would have to have some other source for the "95%-100%" position. If you had such a source, you could simply use it, rather than the source you acknowledge is not reliable.

That you cannot show such a second source indicates that your belief is unsupported, which tells us that it is a matter of faith to you, rather than scholarship.

Which will surprise no one but you, I expect.

 

[gtc]

Every single one of those videos has been debunked here at Holocaust Controversies.

There is a huge amount of material on the videos we have been asked to watch at this site linked to by Nick Terry. The site even links to the videos themselves so that people can make their own minds up.

Unless budly can list some specific point from his video that hasn't been debunked yet or where he disagrees with the rebuttal then I don't see that there is a point to this thread.

It just seems like someone repeatedly (and dishonestly) spruiking their own videos in the vain hope that we won't link to the same rebuttals that others have already made.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Mondial Drops In

Did you guys work this out in the tree fort ahead of time?

Deniers love the lampshades, soap, and shrunken heads. They're almost as fond of them as Elie Wiesel's confabulation. Why?

Well, in the face of tons (literally) of documents and evidence, if they can pick out one little inconsistency here and another over there, they feel it's enough to bring the whole "house of cards" tumbling down.

If this sounds familiar, it's because we spend a lot of time looking at similar tactics from MoonBats, 911 CTers, JFK 'droids, etc... "Ignore the 10,000 pages of that inconvenient report, look at this video!"

Budly, as Nick mentioned, no one with any knowledge of the Holocaust gives any credibility to the lampshade or shrunken heads. It's been proved to be the product of any over-active imagination and long since conceded to be incorrect. So that disproves, to you, that Buchenwald was an extermination camp? Well, guess what... knowledgeable people already know that it wasn't an extermination camp, technically.

Is that your gambit?

And, no, ... I'm not viewing your videos. I don't have the time for them and as Nick and others have pointed out, we have our own de facto rules around here. Chief-most is our own Rule 1 - You Make the Claim - You Bring the Proof. You have made no claim. You just keep plugging away at promoting your videos. We're not really fond of videos as evidence, so if you are incapable of positing some of your evidence in words, prepare for continuation of your initial reception.

So, I'll reword the question for you..... What is it (in words... remember them?) that you think you've discovered about Buchenwald that disproves the Holocaust?

 

[dudalb]

Looks as if both MaGZ and Mondial are angry that that Johnny Come Lately Holocaust Denier, 9/11 Investigator, is getting all the attention.

 

[Nick Terry]

But there's also the doctrine of "Consider the Source" to consider. As Nick Terry, in his above (Nominated, btw) post shows, no other work presented by this person has any merit.

aww

From your nom-post

The best part is, since budly has refused to admit he's denierbud, he can't even complain to the mods about being insulted.

 

[The Platypus]

Doesn't look like the fish are biting Budly. Not surprising considering the bait you are trying is terrible...

 

[dudalb]

Really. Budly has got to come up with a better lure then the one he is using.
Imposing arbritary rules really don't cut it around here.

 

[Thunder]

Budly- all census data from from before and after WW2 shows a loss of at least 5 million Jews. how do you explain that?

did the evil Jews......bribe all the world census people????

ooooooohh!!!!!

there were almost 18 million Jews...in 1929...and today there are less then 14 million. more then 60 years after WW2.

explain that.

 

[Horatius]

aww

From your nom-post

The best part is, since budly has refused to admit he's denierbud, he can't even complain to the mods about being insulted.

What can I say? I love a good bit of Rules Lawyering!

 

[JimBenArm]

I watched the videos. All of them. I'm now a full-blown holocaust denier. I'm also a believer in Bigfoot, UFOs, we never went to the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, JFK was shot by George Bush, and that Yuri Geller can fix my watch with his mind!

In other words, my brain fell out. Can you help me put it back? Please?

 

[Horatius]

did the evil Jews......bribe all the world census people????

You've almost got it right....

ooooooohh!!!!!

there were almost 18 million Jews...in 1929...and today there are less then 14 million. more then 60 years after WW2.

explain that.

[RidiculousJewishStereotype] Well, since everyone knows Jewish women are completely frigid, and never have sex, it's clear that the Joooos were bribing the census takers prior to WWII, in order to inflate their numbers! After WWII, being so cheap, they realized they could stop bribing them, and the lower number would look like they had been victims of some sort of "Holocaust".

You see, they're really quite clever Cheap Joooos. [/RidiculousJewishStereotype]

 

[Thunder]

You've almost got it right....
[RidiculousJewishStereotype] Well, since everyone knows Jewish women are completely frigid, and never have sex, it's clear that the Joooos were bribing the census takers prior to WWII, in order to inflate their numbers! After WWII, being so cheap, they realized they could stop bribing them, and the lower number would look like they had been victims of some sort of "Holocaust".

You see, they're really quite clever Cheap Joooos. [/RidiculousJewishStereotype]

well, 9-11 Investigator says that the Nazis accept the post-WW2 Jewish world population figures...but not the pre ones. they think there was some sorta funny business...but they can't prove it.

they say, how could the Jewish population increase sooo rapidly from 1900 to 1938...but then so slowly from 1945-2009?

then I pointed out to him that a annual pop. growth rate of 3% was not uncommon, and was identical to the Palestinians in the same time period.

why did the Jews stop making babies after WW2? cause were were in shock, inter-marriage jumped dramatically, jewish families were having much fewer kids, and other reasons.

but no...it can't be....there must be a Joo conspiracy somewhere!!

arrggghhh!!! mein kopf!!!