Holocaust Denial Videos

[Arus808]

I dont know what problem you have understanding here denierbud, but the VIDEOS have already been addressed on other sites, especially at this blog:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv

You fail to undesrtand that WE do not need to watch your videos to give a rebuttal, when all the work has already been done already:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv


When you refuse to address what others have already done for us, then it makes us assume that you are not here for discussion, but to stir the pot.


Your tactics are not new, as more experienced and less obvious holocaust deniers before you have tried and failed everytime.


Please address every point as listed here:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv

since you want rebuttals, we will start with the claims as pointed on :

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv


Again, we dont like beating a dead horse; if a rebuttal to your videos have been made, we start there.

So, http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv -- care to start with the first rebuttal?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Budly,



And..... as for me.... (I made my mind up back in Chelsea....)



I told you already - I will (between visits, meetings, conference calls and the like) discuss anything that suits my fancy if you care to post it. You young whippersnappers seem to have forgotten what the written word is. (Why when I was your age we didn't have no intertubes; we had to send our emails by carrier pigeon! Now get off my lawn.)

Did your videos have a script? A story board? Post them. Surely they're not just pretty pictures and groovy soundtracks and there are some actual claims made. Why is it so difficult for you to state one of your significant arguments in the form of a hypothesis, cite your evidence, and we go from there.

I'm beginning to suspect that the several who've mentioned it are right and you're just trolling for hits on your videos. Is there like a conspiradroid membership drive/contest going on? Couldn't you guys just sell girlscout cookies or do a car wash?

 

[Budly]

Hi Arus808,

You wrote,

care to start with the first rebuttal?

How do you know this is a good rebuttal if you haven't seen the video episode it rebuts?

 

[Arus808]

Basically its called trust.

When you claim yourself to be a holocaust denier, you've essentially stated that no one should trust what you say, because you believe that the holocaust as accepted by reputable historians and scholars around the world, and Rational people, didn't happen.


Until you can back your claims with absolute proof (ie EVIDENCE), nothing you say will make me want to watch your videos. I'll trust what OTHER people have to say about your videos

I am not fluent on the Holocaust; and Im only 'related' to the event, based on my, very distant relatives that lost their lives during Holocaust, but that pretty much ends my ties to it. So anything I say wont be helpful to the conversation, which is why I trust the claims and writings of those who are more knowledgeable about history of the Holocaust. I've only read Nizkor since that was what introduced me to the world of Holocaust Denial (I at the time thought people would have to clearly clinically insane to believe that it didn't happen). I never realized how hated the jews were, until I read that website. But, Im not able to recite every instance of the Holocaust, because Im not an historian, nor do I get involved in Holocaust Denial debates where I need ot have this knowledge readily available to use.





Dont be dodging, please address every single point found here:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv

 

[Hokulele]

How do you know this is a good rebuttal if you haven't seen the video episode it rebuts?

The rebuttals list the claims made, and why they are incorrect. Here is an example from the first clip:

1. Bud starts out insinuating that Wiernik’s account A Year in Treblinka is very hard to come by. Amazon doesn’t offer it, and only the University of Berkeley, California happens to have a copy of the book. The impression Bud obviously tries to convey is that access to Wiernik’s account is made or kept difficult because the scholars who have used it as a source don’t want critical readers to check behind them. Actually, however, Bud could have saved himself the trouble of perusing university libraries by simply doing something known as googling. Inserting the words "Wiernik A Year in Treblinka" into a Google browser will turn up these results, and if you click the first of the links turned up by Google you reach a site featuring Wiernik’s A Year in Treblinka. The text on this site seems to be from another edition than the one that Bud found in the Berkeley library, for the wording or terminology is occasionally different from that in Bud’s Berkeley copy. Insofar as can be checked on hand of the passages Bud shows his viewers, however, these differences in wording or terminology do not change the content and meaning of the account in general and the statements that Bud takes issue with in particular, so the online version can be used for assessing the merits of Bud’s commentary. Where I should consider wording or terminology differences between the two versions worth pointing out, I will do so.

In any case, contrary to what Bud insinuates, there’s nothing obscure or secret about Wiernik’s account, which is readily available and easy to access on the web for whoever would like to read it. As video maker and YouTube member Bud is hardly the old-fashioned kind of fellow who doesn’t know how to use an internet search engine, the fuss he makes about how difficult it was to find Wiernik’s account strongly smacks of Bud’s first attempt to take his viewers for a ride. What is more, in episode 29 of the UVP video, Bud makes a fuss about the book on Treblinka by Alexander Donat, "a book respected by Holocaust historians" which is also available via Amazon – both the 1979 paperback edition and the 1988 hardcover edition. Now, Donat’s book contains a reprint of Wiernik’s A Year in Treblinka. So how can Bud seriously insinuate that Wiernik’s account is some hard-to-find mystery that he had to painstakingly seek for?

Source.

Do you deny that this claim is made in the clip? Do you disagree with this analysis?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Obviously a lot of people here don't want you to look at those videos.

I'm not going to look at them because you haven't given me a reason that looking at them would be accomplishing more than inflating web statistics for your clearinghouse of lunacy.

If you could spell it out logically, and with external and authoritative evidence, that your claims have some merit -even outside of places like Elohim City - I might consider watching your presentation.

As it stands, the tide of history and evidence flows against you and your revisionist theories. You haven't accomplished anything here but shill for your websites and videos, which from what I've seen have been throroughly blasted apart in the past.

Is the National Holocaust Museum just another psychological operation? (By the way, your definition of PSYOPS is just as skewed and wrong as every other conspiracy-spouting internet personality out there.)

What's this hiding behind anonymity getting you anyway? If you are the one who created the videos, why not own up to it? It makes you seem cowardly and disingenuous if you don't.

I'd like to know what kind of agenda you're pushing here. Although Tom Metzger would probably think less of you if you came right out with it. Lone-wolf operations and all that. How is ol' Tom these days?

 

[Nick Terry]

That or he is perhaps a member of dozens of forums and is perhaps paid to do this, which is why he has all the good smack down comments like "man up" etc. And shows up within a day or so of a holocaust denial post.

The historian Martin Broszat once described Holocaust denial as an Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit, a truly elegant German phrase that translates more clumsily as 'running amok against reality'. I couldn't come up with a better illustration of the phrase than the above comment from Budly.

Actually, the reasons why woolfe99 turned up here are multiple. Pay attention now since unlike your ridiculous allegation of shilling I can prove these reasons.

For one, as can be confirmed by looking over at the Stundies nominations thread here at JREF, we at RODOH have nominated one of your brethren, 'ralphgordon' who you may know better as 'comradeseinfeld' at CODOH (identical avatars, identical posting style), for a Stundie because of his logic-defying claim that the Holocaust could not have happened because Hitler was a quarter-Jewish, elaborating this claim with the reasoning that as Hitler is famous and so are many Jews, therefore it was likely that Hitler did indeed have Jewish ancestry.

For another, this thread was linked to at RODOH, hardly a great conspiracy and certainly not involving 'dozens of forums', nor requiring a salaried postholder to achieve.

The final reason is because the very same day you turn up here, we were notified via private message by our erstwhile debate partners that they were inquorate, a withdrawal they announced publicly last night.

Three very good reasons why someone from RODOH might turn up here after registering so long ago, within a day of you popping up out of your gopher hole.

Given your performance against the regulars here, the people without any great knowledge of the subject, I'd say you probably need the paranoid explanation that there is a small ninja team of paid shills out to get you, to cope with the embarrassment of signally failing to convince anyone to go along with your game.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. It's your cognitive dissonance, not mine.

 

[Horatius]

But posting liberally to a thread about videos which you haven't watched is maybe indicative of how someone gets to 4,000+ or 8,000+ postings here.

You know, I think your inability to understand history is matched only by your inability to understand what it is you're doing here at JREF. Do you know what that is?


You're advertising.

You're trying to promote your beliefs (Holocaust denial) in the marketplace of ideas. We here are the potential consumers of those ideas, whom you wish to attract to your product.

Now, we skeptics here at JREF are a desirable consumer base in the marketplace of ideas. We are well-known for being smart shoppers, not easily swayed by the nonsense of the day. As such, purveyors of ideas come to us from all over, knowing that if they can convince us, they can convince almost anyone to believe as they do. Thus, we have people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, God, Angels, homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, and a thousand other ideas vying for our attention.

Now remember, you came to us. We did not go looking for your favourite forum to start a discussion of your videos, you came to our forum. If you want to compete against those others for our attention, you must give us something more than they do. I can go to any forum on this site, and find some earnest idea-pusher eager to engage me, and convince me to join them in their beliefs. Why should I engage with you, rather than any one of them?

Your posts here are your advertisements, and they are all you have to draw us in. Despite that, though, right from the very start, you have consistently refused to give us the information that we, as smart shoppers, have learned is needed to make any engagement with you worthwhile. We've shown you reports on your beliefs that indicate they are seriously flawed, which you have made no effort to rebut. It's as if a car salesman we to simply wave away a Consumers Report article that indicated the car he was selling was a fire hazard. Rejecting such a report out of hand may be easy, but it won't sell a car, will it?


You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.

 

[uk_dave]

(lots of good stuff)

Well said.

 

[JimBenArm]

So, tell me again why I should watch this crap? The Holocaust happened. This is an absolute, verified fact. Some minor details may be open for discussion, but that's all. I don't need to watch denier videos to know that they are crap. It's kind of a given, much like knowing the sky will be blue on a sunny day. You can post videos forever, but they will still be crap. To watch them is to give them credence they do not deserve. I don't need to debunk them, that's like debunking a child's fairy tale, since that's all they are, only much more disgusting, given the subject.

So go find another audience. This one is just too smart to fall for your clumsy marketing attempts, and your inability to be able to make coherent arguments. I hear there are some neo-Nazi groups in Idaho. They'll probably buy what you're selling. After all, neo-Nazis are some of the stupidest people on the planet.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If Bud is unwilling or too lazy to put to text the points he made in the video, then there is zero reason to go watch it. I've done that enough for 9/11 conspiracy fantasy peddlers; I've heard enough of their videos promising unbeatable, undeniable arguments only to bother viewing the video and see the same myths get recycled over and over again. In short, historical revisionists have a track record of empty promises. What in the world would be different about a self-professed holocaust denier's video?

The bottom line to Budly is this: You bring your argument here. You do not tell people to go view the argument elsewhere. Period. End of story. If you refuse to do so, there's nothing to discuss.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.

Nominated. And if I ever take SteveAustin off ignore, I'll post him a link to it.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

Hi Arus808,

You're right: if a video has been debunked by a blogspot website, there's no need for you to watch it.

And you're right: I should write a rebuttal to a rebuttal of a video you're never going to watch. And post it here so that you can read it and totally understand it.

Videos debunked over 60 years ago by my father and thousands more.
The failed videos are what comes from dirt dumb neoNAZIs who can't comprehend reality due to massive ignorance and/or hate. Your support of the videos and web site mean you lack knowledge on a topic which was debunked by history. You need to gain some knowledge to understand the videos were developed by a sick idiot unable to form rational thought. Good luck.

 

[Nick Terry]

You know, I think your inability to understand history is matched only by your inability to understand what it is you're doing here at JREF. Do you know what that is?

You're advertising.

You're trying to promote your beliefs (Holocaust denial) in the marketplace of ideas. We here are the potential consumers of those ideas, whom you wish to attract to your product.

Now, we skeptics here at JREF are a desirable consumer base in the marketplace of ideas. We are well-known for being smart shoppers, not easily swayed by the nonsense of the day. As such, purveyors of ideas come to us from all over, knowing that if they can convince us, they can convince almost anyone to believe as they do. Thus, we have people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, God, Angels, homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, and a thousand other ideas vying for our attention.

Now remember, you came to us. We did not go looking for your favourite forum to start a discussion of your videos, you came to our forum. If you want to compete against those others for our attention, you must give us something more than they do. I can go to any forum on this site, and find some earnest idea-pusher eager to engage me, and convince me to join them in their beliefs. Why should I engage with you, rather than any one of them?

Your posts here are your advertisements, and they are all you have to draw us in. Despite that, though, right from the very start, you have consistently refused to give us the information that we, as smart shoppers, have learned is needed to make any engagement with you worthwhile. We've shown you reports on your beliefs that indicate they are seriously flawed, which you have made no effort to rebut. It's as if a car salesman we to simply wave away a Consumers Report article that indicated the car he was selling was a fire hazard. Rejecting such a report out of hand may be easy, but it won't sell a car, will it?


You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.

Nominated also. This post has already been quoted elsewhere, by someone else, which is testimony to how relevant it is to just about every form of lunacy that JREF contends with.

 

[Horatius]

Nominated also. This post has already been quoted elsewhere, by someone else, which is testimony to how relevant it is to just about every form of lunacy that JREF contends with.

Thanks for the Nominations, guys! I'll have to go google this, to see where else it was quoted! ETA: Can't find anything yet. Where was it quoted?

 

[Budly]

Why Should You Watch These Videos?

Hi Everyone,

I just read all the posts and a lot of people said "why should we watch these videos." I'll give some reasons:

There are major players in the Middle East who are holocaust deniers. Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad of Iran for instance. Then there's Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority who did a doctoral dissertation that had a holocaust denial aspect.

If you think holocaust denial is just pure madness, it's easy to think Ahmahdinejad is mad, and it's easier for the public to think it's o.k. to bomb Iran, overthrow the regime, just like the USA did in the early 1950's.

Thus it's perhaps good to understand what holocaust denial is, and the best way to learn about it, is to read what deniers say in their own words.

Here's another reason, the video Buchenwald makes the claim that a Psyche Warfare Operation took place at Buchenwald. Does that stop there? No, because extrapolating from that, the video Nazi Shrunken Heads claims that a Psyche Warfare Operation was likely waged against Idi Amin. Afterall, don't you think a leader who is so delusional that he thinks he's the "Last King of Scotland" is a bit farfetched? As far fetched as Nazis shrinking heads? That's Psyche Warfare stuff. Public Relations warfare stuff.

Granted that holocaust deniers focusing on lampshades and shrunken heads, is basically minutiae of the holocaust. But it's not enough just to discount it. Go deeper: why was the belief there in the first place: Answer: Allied Psyche Warfare operation.

If shrunken heads are minutiae, then the video One Third of the Holocaust is not. That video is about Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, and were you to read Professor Timothy Snyder's article called "Holocaust: The Ignored Reality" in the New York Review of Books on 7/16/9, you would find his claim that these camps (not Auschwitz) are the center of an adequate version of holocaust history.

It's easy to dip into these videos. Just look at episode 1 of One Third Of the Holocaust. It puts forth the notion that the most important Treblinka eyewitness, Yankel Wiernik, is a fraud. Afterward you can read a rebuttal backed by Nick Terry and Woolf that claims Wiernik is not a fraud. Some people here state that these rebuttals are so rock solid that there's no need to watch the video. The rebuttal is called "Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan." You'll have to ask yourself if that sounds like the title to a rock solid scholarly rebuttal. Anyway, watching episode 1, and then reading the rebuttal is a good way to dip into these videos.

In short, holocaust denial is important to understand because it's a belief of key players in the mideast. To chalk it off to madness and hate makes it easier for the media to generate a pro-war consensus against Iran and other countries. Also the Psyche Warfare aspect of it, reverberated into the 70's with deposing Idi Amin. These are two points among many why it's important to know about holocaust denial, and the best way? From a denier's own words at holocaust denial videos. If you learn about holocaust denial by people against it, you're going to get a strawman portrayal. Meaning they create their own straw man, and then knock it down themselves.

 

[Nick Terry]

Thanks for the Nominations, guys! I'll have to go google this, to see where else it was quoted! ETA: Can't find anything yet. Where was it quoted?

RODOH.

Jon Harrison has, by the way, just blogged a few comments on this thread at Holocaust Controversies.

Denierbud Implodes

Question: When is 5% "very close" to 0%

Answer: When you are as deluded and dishonest as Denierbud.

Denierbud turned up on this JREF thread on the same day that the Negationist Team formally withdrew its acceptance of our challenge to debate the Aktion Reinhardt camps. The dishonesty of his opening post was immediately apparent to that forum's readers. Denierbud wrote:

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

There are numerous holocaust denial videos found at:
holocaustdenialvideos.com

I'm most interested in what people think about the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found there but feel free to discuss the other holocaust denial videos also.

I am asking if anyone here can watch some episodes of one of the videos and state specifically that they don't agree with in a specific episode. I request the following guidelines:

1) Discuss a specific episode of a specific video. The videos are all broken up into episodes. Don't change subject to another holocaust topic, which the videos don't cover. For instance the comment "what about the millions who saw it happen?" would be breaking this guideline, since the videos don't cover that and it thus changes the topic.

2) Don't focus on how it is or hateful to be a denier. Rather, state specifically what you don't agree with (or agree with) in a specific episode of a specific video at holocaust denial videos dot com.

Sorry to put "specific" in bold but you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get people to do this. We'll see if anyone can do it here.​

The dishonesty here is clear: someone who is genuinely "open to your view" does not formulate rules that close off any questions that force him to explain his position and place his claims in context.

It also became apparent that JREF posters were familiar with our past rebuttals of Denierbud's videos and were able to link to our rebuttals without any prompting from ourselves. When a succession of JREF posters insisted that he respond to those rebuttals, Denierbud fell back on the bizarre claim that Pressac's estimate of Zyklon-B usage at Auschwitz was 'very close' to his own:

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.​

This last sentence is simply untrue. Whilst Pressac's claim has been disputed by other authorities (most notably Van Pelt), Pressac's position is diametrically opposed to Denierbud's, for the obvious reason that Pressac goes on to argue that the remaining 5% was still used to gas hundreds of thousands of Jews. Denierbud's entire dogma requires zero Jewish deaths by this method.

The difference between 5% and 0% is therefore huge in this context, just as it would be if I owned 5% of the USA's national wealth and my neighbour owned 0%.

Does Denierbud not grasp basic mathematics, and indeed basic logic, or is he simply a liar? Either way, his shambolic performance at JREF is further proof that denial, having failed in all other public fora, is now a laughing stock in the Internet community.

 

[Nick Terry]

Hi Everyone,

I just read all the posts and a lot of people said "why should we watch these videos." I'll give some reasons:

There are major players in the Middle East who are holocaust deniers. Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad of Iran for instance. Then there's Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority who did a doctoral dissertation that had a holocaust denial aspect.

If you think holocaust denial is just pure madness, it's easy to think Ahmahdinejad is mad, and it's easier for the public to think it's o.k. to bomb Iran, overthrow the regime, just like the USA did in the early 1950's.

Thus it's perhaps good to understand what holocaust denial is, and the best way to learn about it, is to read what deniers say in their own words.

Here's another reason, the video Buchenwald makes the claim that a Psyche Warfare Operation took place at Buchenwald. Does that stop there? No, because extrapolating from that, the video Nazi Shrunken Heads claims that a Psyche Warfare Operation was likely waged against Idi Amin. Afterall, don't you think a leader who is so delusional that he thinks he's the "Last King of Scotland" is a bit farfetched? As far fetched as nazis shrinking heads?

Granted that holocaust deniers focusing on lampshades and shrunken heads, is basically minutiae of the holocaust. But it's not enough just to discount it. Go deeper: why was the belief there in the first place: Answer: Allied Psyche Warfare operation.

If shrunken heads are minutiae, then the video One Third of the Holocaust is not. That video is about Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, and were you to read Professor Timothy Snyder's article called "Holocaust: The Ignored Reality" in the New York Review of Books on 7/16/9, you would find his claim that these camps (not Auschwitz) are the center of an adequate version of holocaust history.

It's easy to dip into these videos. Just look at episode 1 of One Third Of the Holocaust. It puts forth the notion that the most important Treblinka eyewitness, Yankel Wiernik, is a fraud. Afterward you can read a rebuttal backed by Nick Terry and Woolf that claims Wiernik is not a fraud. Some people here state that these rebuttals are so rock solid that there's no need to watch the video. The rebuttal is called "Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan" if that seems like the title of a rock solid scholarly rebuttal, then so be it. Anyway, watching episode 1, and then reading the rebuttal is a good way to dip into these videos.

In short, holocaust denial is important to understand because it's a belief of key players in the mideast. To chalk it off to madness and hate makes it easier for the media to generate a pro-war consensus against Iran. Also the Psyche Warfare aspect of it, reverberated into the 70's with deposing Idi Amin. These are two points among many why it's important to know about holocaust denial, and the best way? From a denier's own words at holocaust denial videos.

God, you're a truly lousy salesman.

 

[woolfe99]

Hi Woolfe99

Here's something I prefer: why don't you watch an episode of a video at [link] which has never been rebutted over at the HolocaustControversies blogspot and then offer your view here. How about the video [link] and the assertion that the lamphade and shrunken heads are there as part of a Psyche Warfare operation to denazify the German population, but the info "blew back" into American media. Foolmewunz is also maybe going to watch it. There is no information about it at holocaustcontroversies, and Nick Terry claims he's never watched it nor will he. So maybe you can watch it and offer your independent opinion here.

Let's see. I've seen all of the One Third of the Holocaust videos. And the Cole video (twice). I've read two books by Mattagno, the Butz book, the Sanning book, the Leuchter Report, the Rudolf Report, and nearly the entire archive of the JHR. I've also absorded two years of accumulated denier postings as RODOH, and sporadic denier postings at CODOH. Am I suddenly going to have an epiphany over a video about lampshades and shrunken heads? Will I suddenly see a connection between allegations against people like Ilsa Koch at Buchenwald, and mass exterminations by way of shootings and gassings in Poland and the USSR, that I have never seen before? I have read Dr. Neander's excellent footnoted monograph on soap and lampshades, and no offense, but the odds of that video contributing anything further to my understanding of these issues are slim to none.

I still want to know why anyone thinks it appropriate to open a "new" discussion of years old videos, when there are extant rebuttals of those videos which have never been addressed by either the creator of the videos or any proponent of the videos. It's like you're pretending as if the refutations never happened, just like you're pretending the Holocaust never happened. Why don't you address the refutations of "One Third of the Holocaust," and then I'll view any other videos you'd like, and we can discuss them right here.

- woolfe

 

[Nick Terry]

If shrunken heads are minutiae, then the video One Third of the Holocaust is not. That video is about Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, and were you to read Professor Timothy Snyder's article called "Holocaust: The Ignored Reality" in the New York Review of Books on 7/16/9, you would find his claim that these camps (not Auschwitz) are the center of an adequate version of holocaust history.

Great, now please formulate some claims and statements about Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. In your own words, please.