• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There is no evidence for WW II according to holohoax scholar !

Saggy

Graduate Poster
S
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
1,819
Robert Jan Van Pelt is a leading holocaust scholar and a professor at the University of Waterloo, so we can take his writing as authoritative, and we have, from a recent article which can be seen here ....

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/742965--a-case-for-letting-nature-take-back-auschwitz

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony."

Van Pelt is one of the world's most respected holocaust authorities, so I trust him when he says that we do not have physical evidence to prove 99% of what we know about the holocaust. But, I think he may have overlooked some of the physical evidence for WW II .....

http://maxgrace.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/battleship_003.jpg

Edited, breach of Rule 4 - do not hotlink copyrighted material.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saggy said:
Robert Jan Van Pelt is a leading holocaust scholar and a professor at the University of Waterloo, so we can take his writing as authoritative, and we have, from a recent article which can be seen here ....

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/742965--a-case-for-letting-nature-take-back-auschwitz

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.
Click to expand...

And what's the difference between "evidence" and "physical evidence"?

More epic fail by a Nazi apologist.

Further from the same interview:

We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . . . We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. That's how we know that Cesar was killed on the Ides of March. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
Robert Jan Van Pelt is a leading holocaust scholar and a professor at the University of Waterloo, so we can take his writing as authoritative, and we have, from a recent article which can be seen here ....

But, I think he may have overlooked some of the physical evidence for WW II .....
Click to expand...



Right; that the one percent we know.
For, the rest, where and when it was deployed, what was its mission and which battles the ship engaged in, we have to rely on documentary and testimonial evidence.

The same way, we know that the concentration camps existed and contained gas chambers from hard evidences. Now, the knowledge about how these gas chambers were used, how many victims they claimed... That has to be gained from similar documentary and testimonial evidence.

And yet, this type of evidences that is perfectly fine concerning the life of a warship suddenly becomes suspicious to deniers as soon as it refers to the Holocaust...
I guess that's what Van Pelt was referring to...
 
Saggy said:
Robert Jan Van Pelt is a leading holocaust scholar and a professor at the University of Waterloo, so we can take his writing as authoritative, and we have, from a recent article which can be seen here ....

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/742965--a-case-for-letting-nature-take-back-auschwitz

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony."

Van Pelt is one of the world's most respected holocaust authorities, so I trust him when he says that we do not have physical evidence to prove 99% of what we know about the holocaust. But, I think he may have overlooked some of the physical evidence for WW II .....

http://maxgrace.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/battleship_003.jpg
Click to expand...

If the physical existence of a battleship proves that WWII happened, then the physical existence of Auschwitz proves that the holocaust happened.

Somehow I don't think you understood this guy's argument.
 
Is this a parody thread on the Holocaust denial threads? By no less than a Holocaust denier himself - saves us the trouble from making one. :D
 
A Holocaust Denier misinterperts and distorts what a respected Historian is saying.
Ain't the first time that has happened......
 
drkitten said:
And what's the difference between "evidence" and "physical evidence"?

More epic fail by a Nazi apologist.

Further from the same interview:
Click to expand...

now yes that is another epic fail.

why is it holocaust deniers/9/11 truthers/and CTists in general have such piss poor reading comprehension and abysmal research skills?
 
TruthersLie said:
now yes that is another epic fail.

why is it holocaust deniers/9/11 truthers/and CTists in general have such piss poor reading comprehension and abysmal research skills?
Click to expand...

That's a question that pretty much answers itself, isn't it? You have to have piss poor reading comprehension and abysmal research skills in order to be sucked in by the CT nonsense.
 
Yoink said:
That's a question that pretty much answers itself, isn't it? You have to have piss poor reading comprehension and abysmal research skills in order to be sucked in by the CT nonsense.
Click to expand...

I agree, but in the case of Holocaust Deniers you have a hatred of the Jews which blinds them to all else and makes them willing to believe anything negative about the Jews.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Horatius said:
Please. Show me any evidence that that little cruise ship was used in the "World War"!
Click to expand...

Please. As if something made of steel weighing 30,000-40,000 tons would float on water.

Pfffft. Cleverly doctored photos of some supposed "boat" on some supposed "water." You sheeple will fall for anything.
 
I say this a lot, but it really is true:

Just when you thought conspiracy wingnuts could not suggest a theory that is more stupid than the stuff they already push, they surprise you. If you read the article, and then read what the OP said, there is no relationship between the two.

Whats next, OP? Denying the Gulf War? Denying the existence of the ozone layer?
 
Last edited:
LightinDarkness said:
I say this a lot, but it really is true:

Just when you thought conspiracy wingnuts could not suggest a theory that is more stupid than the stuff they already push, they surprise you. If you read the article, and then read what the OP said, there is no relationship between the two.
Click to expand...

Thinking that I had somehow missed hearing about a Holocaust Denier living within driving driving distance and at a respected Canadian university. I Googled.

He is not a Denier at all. Whatever point he was making was garbled, twisted and mis-represented in the OP. :mad:

Whats next, OP? Denying the Gulf War? Denying the existence of the ozone layer?
Click to expand...

Well, were you there? Can you see the ozone layer? :duck:
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
He is not a Denier at all. Whatever point he was making was garbled, twisted and mis-represented in the OP. :mad:
Click to expand...

He made the point that our knowledge of the holocaust will be mostly of the same sense of our knowledge of WWII, WWI, and Napoleon ("most historical facts").

This is, naturally, not a denial of the holocaust, but the exact opposite.

I fail to see why someone can deny the holocaust and accept the fact that, say, Napoleon or the Roman empire ever existed, or that WWII or WWI ever occurred.

Do you have any physical evidence for the existence of, say, FDR or the treaty of Versailles or Cicero? No?

See?
 
What does Van Pelt mean by no physical evidence of the holohoax?

1. No bodies - the US sent forensic pathologists into the camps immediately after the war. Not a single body showing signs of gas poisoning was found. None have been found since. There is not a single mass grave of holohoax victims that has been excavated.

2. No murder weapon - a morgue room at Auschwitz and a fumigation room at Majdanek have been identified as 'homicidal gas chambers', but these allegations are obviously absurd as both rooms have large unbarred plate glass windows.

3. No documents - There is not a single document that supports the holohoax in the camps, despite millions of captured documents. There are documents supporting the 'eastern' phase of the hoax, for example Nazi documents stating that 30,000 were killed at Babi Yar. Unfortunately for the hoaxers, no bodies have been found at Babi Yar.

It's really an extraordinary admission. No physical evidence for the holohoax. There is an explanation - the reason there is no evidence for the planning or implementation of a plan to exterminate European Jews is because it was all war propaganda, without any basis in fact, or physical evidence, whatever.
 
Saggy said:
What does Van Pelt mean by no physical evidence of the holohoax?
Click to expand...
Van Pelt said no such thing in the article. He was arguing that Auschwitz doesn't neccesarily have to be preserved just because it's physical evidence of the Holocaust, because the Holocaust is just as certain as any other historical fact we know of. The three points you listed as the answer to this question have nothing to do with anything Van Pelt has written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom