What debate showed Holocaustians in retreat?
I can’t believe this is happening to me! Trojan put’s the ball for me in front of his open goal so I only have to kick it in. Thanks Trojan, if you were not there I had to invent you. Now let me see…
1.
Toronto Great Holocaust Trial. First of all we have the Great Zuendel Trials that turned into Great Holocaust Trials in Toronto 1985-1989. The breakthrough was not that Zuendel was cleared of any acquisations, the real highlight was that holocaust pope Hilberg was exposed as the fraud that he was.
Hilberg had to admit that there was no documentary evidence for mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers whatsoever. That there was no Hitler order. Furthermore Auschwitz crown witness Rudolf Vrba was exposed as a shameless liar.
http://www.codoh.com/author/portraits/port5zue.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p417_Faurisson.html
2.
Mark Weber and Ted O'Keefe :: 1990 :: KFI AM640 Los Angeles
Here a Jewish talk show host who had organized a meeting between representatives of the IHR and those of the Wiesenthal Center. They all agreed but in the last moment the holocaustians of the WC chickened out. So who is avoiding the debate? The sympathetic talk show host, who clearly believes in the holocaust, gave Mark Weber and Ted O’Keefe a fair treatment.
http://www.ihraudio.dreamhost.com/revisionism_on_kfi_am640.mp3
IHR:
With its 24-hour 50,000-watt signal, and enormous listening audience in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, KFI is easily the biggest talk-radio station on the west coast. And Ted O'Keefe and Mark Weber were scheduled for a live in-studio debate with Aaron Breitbart, senior researcher from the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center. Breitbart chickened out at the last minute, so for over 2 hours — from 7:30 PM until 10:00 PM — on the evening of December 17, 1990, roughly a million KFI listeners from as far away as Oregon and Texas got an unforgettable dose of history in accord with the facts. This is probably the most effective case for Holocaust revisionism ever carried over the airwaves.
3.
Recent discussion between Faurisson and a Danish holocaustian named Andersson. The sympathetic Dane is no match for the old fox Faurisson and gets destroyed in two-and-a-half hours:
http://www.codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5394
http://member.newsguy.com/~kreiberg/fdebat1.ram
As a consequence the Dane gave up his career of being a holocaust ayatollah. Something our own Nick Terry could take an example from.
Some forum-poster remarked:
This is an excellent debate. It’s a textbook-example of what happens when a good revisionist debates a holocaust believer and a good example why they always try to avoid a public debate. The first minutes are a little bit boring but after 17 minutes it gets really interesting. It’s a contant back and forth between Andersson and Faurisson. I found it very instructive how Faurisson responds to all of Anderssons claims and how he nails him down, and how Andersson tries to evade Faurissons precise questions. I sometimes wondered why so many other revisionists always called Faurisson one of the most important revisionists and one of their most influential mentors, since there are other revisionists who have produced much more literature. But after listening to this debate I know why. It’s obvious how much he knows about the topic, he never evades a question, and he has always a very convincing answer. It’s amazing how he corners his opponent with precise and strategic questions, almost like a chess-player. And both Faurisson and Andersson are always fair during the whole debate. I encourage everyone to carefully listen to and study this debate. I think learned a lot from it how to debate a believer.
4.
Weber-Shermer debate 1995.
Google Video.
Here a 2 hour video of a unique event: a debat between a leading revisionist Mark Weber and the libertarian holocaustian Michael Shermer. It is unique because it doesn't happen that often that 2 representatives of both groups can get along with each other. It is obvious that the libertarian takes a libertarian core principle of free speech serious. The video is a model of how the debate should be engaged: businesslike, without ad hominem and to the point. My opponents here can learn a lot from the civilized behavior of Shermer.
Review of the debate from both sides:
IHR:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n1p22_Weber.html
Shermer:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/s/shermer-michael/july22-debate-comments.html