Holocaust Denial Videos

[Lonewulf]

I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that? I made it clear that I wanted your views on videos. I asked for this communities' views on videos and instead got people asking me about census data, and even a person joining the forum who refused to look at any videos but who wanted to debate me.

Your videos are full of misinformation and are not worth my time.

As you aren't here to "debate", that's pretty much everything you were asking for.

 

[Drudgewire]

I made it clear that I wanted your views on videos.

Any videos?

Personally I think the latter "Girls Gone Wild" videos were all about production and celebrities and lacked the drunken innocent charm of the originals.

 

[elbe]

I think video is dying, it's all digital now!

Is there any original research in these videos to make them worth even a paltry amount of effort? If every claim made in it can be, and has been, seen elsewhere then why should anyone bother with your video?

 

[JimBenArm]

I think video is dying, it's all digital now!

Is there any original research in these videos to make them worth even a paltry amount of effort? If every claim made in it can be, and has been, seen elsewhere then why should anyone bother with your video?

Silly! Because they're HIS videos, of course!

 

[Thunder]

I was never here to debate. .

JREF is a debate and discussion forum. Perhaps you should go back to Stormfront.

 

[elbe]

Silly! Because they're HIS videos, of course!

They clearly aren't! denialbud, budly, world of difference. And I think we all know that people on the interweb would never try to, poorly, mask their identity from site to site.

The OP puts me in mind of a slightly more coherent yrreg. But I don't see why anyone else can't play at the rules game:

3) If you don't write every post in the form of a question you lose that round.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

4) Every post must end by naming a type of cheese - no repeats.

Stilton.

 

[Lonewulf]

I reject your arbitrary rules, Joey. You'll never get me to agree to it.








Cheddar.






Damnit.

 

[Hokulele]

Can we question the rules?

5) All posts must start with the letter "C".


Gruyère.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Can you see this, budly/denierbud? We can play with "rules" too.

Gloucester.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Whatever.

Velveta.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Whatever.

Velveta.

Velveeta is a cheese? I have my doubts that it's actually a food, frankly.

Budly are you going to post any actual content from any of the Sacred Videos of Putrid Revisionism? Or were you just here to ratchet up the hit count on your stuff? If, as we suspect, may I be the first to say, "Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out"?

Gorgonzola

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why do you hate jews, Budly?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Hi Sword Of Truth

You broke Rule #4.

Limburger.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hi Sword Of Truth

You broke Rule #4.

Limburger.

Creative intro to start with C
Hi Joey Donuts

You broke Hokulele's rule # 5 (see post 209).

On another note I had missed where Budly did bring some info! Since this is what we've been asking for I'll scan it and see if my hunch was correct. BTW since he first said

O.K. I'll pick a video for you and an episode:<snip> Here is a specific question for you: Do you think Yankel Wiernik is a credible Treblinka eyewitness?

I figured that was your strong point and you just might even be correct that A witness has credibility issues.

An obviously fraudulent eyewitnesses like Yankel Weirnik who claimed a guy dressed as a clown with an alarm clock tied around his neck, timed people going to the bathroom at Treblinka

The clock makes perfect sense to me, the costume might have to have a back story. Is this the obvious fraud part?

isn't discredited by saying such a ridiculous thing.

Again, not ridiculous in my book. Unusual, sure.

And because A Year in Treblinka was used as a template by other witnesses, at least one other witness said the same thing as the rebuttal author points out.

False story spreading? Or confirmation? As a non-expert i can't say but luckily you've got all kinds certainty.

The next passage makes a big deal about where the testimony of Yankel Wiernik can be found, stating that it's disingenous to say it's hard to find when it's on the web. Maybe the videomaker wanted a hard copy. By the way, the web version of Wiernik's account is great to read because you can see that Denierbud left out a lot of parts that show Wiernik is lying. Like where the naked woman leaps a 9 foot fence, from chapter 8 of A Year in Treblinka:

I agree that that story seems unlikely as literal truth. Perhaps he was speaking in metaphors? A superhuman naked female heroine leaping fences and killing enemy soldiers sounds like the kind of urban legend schoolkids would make up and pass around.

In other words, Denierbud doesn't include ALL the unbelievable stories.

Oh my, have you alerted him? So there are other good examples? Fine, you may have a witness whose stories can't be all believed. Perhaps there's something wrong with his mind and memory due to, oh, I dunno... THE HOLOCAUST?

So "sprinkled with benzine" becomes "soaked in gasoline" thereby suiting the rebuttal author.

What's your point? I don't know much about benzene.

Okay that's good enough. Suffice to say, from what you've shown, Wiernik may not be a fully credible witness. That may be wrong, but let's just presume a moment this is true - that even his full account is wrong, or fabricated, and all thing Wiernik, and all subesquent repetitions nased on them, go down. That's a big "if" in itself, but if it were so, what would that really mean for the overall denial case? It's not like our understanding of the holocaust is from one witness with no supporting evidence or anything.

it hardly is meaningful if people haven't watched the video.

No, there's actually less lost, all around, this way.

Gorgonzola

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Confound it all.

Hi Caustic Logic.

You broke rule #4. See post #212.

Pepper Jack

 

[Nick Terry]

I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that?

Words fail me. So...

Lymeswold

 

[Budly]

Hi Caustic Logic,

It was somewhat decided to talk about episode 1 of One Third of the Holocaust, and I was goaded into writing a rebuttal to the holocaustControversies rebuttal of episode 1. Yankel Wiernik is largely the topic of that episode. Notice how no one else here even mentioned Wiernik? Nick Terry and Woolf and the HolocaustControversies team believe he's a credible witness, though they're not inclined to mention him here. They skipped him when replying to my "rebuttal to a rebuttal" though I discussed him and included a story from his book.

You wrote,

A superhuman naked female heroine leaping fences and killing enemy soldiers sounds like the kind of urban legend schoolkids would make up and pass around.

Yes, propaganda draws on such powerful stories. The Nazi shrunken head is similar: the Nazis were savages. They were outside of civilized people, hence they made shrunken heads.

Here's why Yankel Wiernik is important:

#1. most important Treblinka eyewitness.
#2. Wrote a book-length memoir before the war was over. (well he's not the writer but I can't get into that.)
#4. The next book-length memoir was written in the 1980's by Samuel Wilenberg.
#5. Treblinka is considered the second most major holocaust camp, with Auschwitz being first.
#6 Major holocaust scholars like Raul Hilberg use Wiernik as a source which makes one question their integrity.
#7 Was a witness at the Eichmann trial.

So this is why it's important. Of course this is only episode 1 of a 4-hour free internet video.

Oh, and I think benzene is a term used to mean gasoline in Europe sometimes.

Lord of the Hundreds

 

[tsig]

Hi Parky76

You broke Guideline #1. See my initial post. I don't know about census data. Census data isn't in the videos. This isn't a "debate anything about the holocaust" thread. Start that thread if you'd like, but this isn't it.

We won't ride your train nor take your showers.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Crap on rules

Hi Caustic Logic,
<snip>

Yes, propaganda draws on such powerful stories. The Nazi shrunken head is similar: the Nazis were savages. They were outside of civilized people, hence they made shrunken heads.

Don't get too giddy there now.

Here's why Yankel Wiernik is important:

#1. most important Treblinka eyewitness.

Well that's a qualitative judgment. He's certainly not the only witness. Though it does appear theis story has a hazy ending with open questions.

Another group, dubbed the Totenjuden (the Jews of death), lived in Treblinka II and were forced to carry the dead from the gas chamber to the furnaces, sift through the ashes of the dead, grind up recognizable parts, and bury the ashes in pits.

wikipedia cites Steiner and Weaver. Was Wiernick their source? How about Vasily Grossman? How about the other 40 or so known survivors? The on-site imspections that found human bones and ashes filling pits around the camp? Even just for the story of Treblinka, this one camp affected by Wierick's testimony, we have numerous points of evidence collectively showing a Nazi death camp that was just that - a DEATH CAMP and nothing else - counter to your implications they were all about anything but death.

Picking Treblinka is both an ironic and an obvious choice for you to target.

#2. Wrote a book-length memoir before the war was over. (well he's not the writer but I can't get into that.)
#4. The next book-length memoir was written in the 1980's by Samuel Wilenberg.

#5. Treblinka is considered the second most major holocaust camp, with Auschwitz being first.

Is it now? Wikipedia says "According to the Germans and the guards who were stationed in Treblinka, the figure ranges from 1,000,000 to 1,400,000" people killed there. Sounds like a lot. Wierneck told them to say it, didn't he?

#6 Major holocaust scholars like Raul Hilberg use Wiernik as a source which makes one question their integrity.

Mmmaybe. You have bigger problems tho.

#7 Was a witness at the Eichmann trial.

All right, so Eichman's innocent?

Oh, and I think benzene is a term used to mean gasoline in Europe sometimes.

Ah. That's funny cause earlier you said " So "sprinkled with benzine" becomes "soaked in gasoline" thereby suiting the rebuttal author." as if it were a bad thing. It is a different highly flammable liquid aromatic hydrocarbon.

Paneer (is that type?)