• 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.

Merged The Zyklon Induction Columns at Auschwitz.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Revdude said:
According to the introductory paragraph of the study, the defense in the Irving v Lipstadt trial tried to introduce this report into evidence, but were rejected.
Click to expand...

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

What the abstract (that's called an "abstract" by the way, not an "introductory paragraph" — if you ever do genuine research, you will learn that) says is that Irving's application to appeal the judgment against him in Irving v. Lipstadt was rejected.

That means Irving lost the case and, therefore, the report did not need to be heard in open court because it an appeal was not granted.

I think that it's always going to be a losing game for you guys to mention this trial at all because, particularly at the appeal stage, Irving just couldn't refute the scientific evidence entered.

In fact, because such a substantial portion of Irving's appeal relied on there not being holes in the roof, that the holes had been conclusively located removed much of the grounds for his appeal application. See:

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/appeal/skeleton/0132
 
Wroclaw said:
I think that it's always going to be a losing game for you guys to mention this trial at all because, particularly at the appeal stage, Irving just couldn't refute the scientific evidence entered.
Click to expand...

I am new to the world of holocaust deniers but I find debunking their rubish is a pleasant way to spend some time. Having just been made aware of this case and finished some reading on it I can not for the life of me figure out why any denier would point to this. Can someone explain how a losing judgment and a paper that locates the zyklon B holes supports the deniers cause?

from the judgement against Irving

The judge summarizes his findings as follows:
"Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.[4] ... therefore the defence of justification succeeds.[5] ... It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants.[64]
Click to expand...
 
I only read the OP, and just had one giant *FACEPALM.*

I have no idea how anyone in their right minds could possibly deny the absolutely overwhelming evidence and eyewitness testimony to the Holocaust.

You are denying:

1. Allied soldiers who actually saw the conditions in said camps for themselves.
2. German soldiers who actually saw the conditions in said camps for themselves, and those who admitted their guilt for their complicity in the matters.
3. The prisoners themselves who saw what went on, on a daily basis.
4. The amount of documentation that the Germans themselves painstakingly recorded.
5. The layout of the prisons to this day.
6. The depletion of whole populations of Europe that the war itself (bombings, and urban fighting) cannot explain alone.
 
Revdude said:
I've read the report thoroughly-several times actually.
I imagine you guys were not even aware of it prior to my linking it for you.
Oh, and the point about the Irving trial was simply to lend a little legitimacy to it for you.
Click to expand...
What legitimacy do you think Irving can lend to anything?
 
dafydd said:
Irving,a man who can tell two different lies out of both corners of his mouth at the same time.
Click to expand...

Irving is an interesting case. He went from German sympathizer to Hitler hugger (e.g., his thesis in his book Hitler's War that Hitler neither knew about nor ordered the Final Solution) before seizing on the discredited Leuchter Report as a justification to become a flat-out Holocaust denier. Proving, if proof be needed, that there is a Holocaust denier lurking behind the curtain in the heart of every Hitler hugger.
 
.
Don't forget, Irving was one of the first to denounce the "Hitler Diaries" as fake.

Of course, a week later he reversed that opinion, becoming the last to pronounce them genuine.
.
 
little grey rabbit said:
In this case you are wrong, the ovens connected to the chimney by under the floor flues.

If you really want to know I can post the architectural plans.
Click to expand...


If you have the plans in pdf or another format that will allow us to increase their size enough to be useful, I'd like to see them. The reproductions I have in various books are too small to be of much service.
 
Dogzilla said:
If you have the plans in pdf or another format that will allow us to increase their size enough to be useful, I'd like to see them. The reproductions I have in various books are too small to be of much service.
Click to expand...

Please share them with the group.
 
Wroclaw said:
Please share them with the group.
Click to expand...

Are you talkin' to me? The reproductions of blueprints that I have are found in van Pelt's "The Case for Auschwitz" and Shermer's "Denying History." I can't make copies without breaking the binding of the books.
 
No, I meant LGR, not you.

What was your first language? Just curious...
 
.
Y'know, something odd just occurred to me.

Has there *ever* been a female denier? No, Renouf doesn't count: I'm asking about someone who was *born* a woman.

I can't think of any woman, educated in historiography, that supports this crap...
.
 
Last edited:
TSR said:
.
Y'know, something odd just occurred to me.

Has there *ever* been a female denier? No, Renouf doesn't count: I'm asking about someone who was *born* a woman.

I can't think of a single woman, educated in historiography, that supports this crap...
.
Click to expand...

Ingrid Weckert, Ingrid Rimland, Maria Temmer, Audrey Pinque/Mackenzie something-or-other (RIP), er.... that's about it.

None, of course, actually historically trained.
 
.
Weckert's tome was arguably ghost written by Kuhnen.

I can't think of anything original about the Holocaust by Rimmy (or anything original on any other subject other than Zundel, for that matter)

Nor did Pinque ever publish that I am aware, so we only have Bradley Smith's word that she was a revisionist rather than a garden-variety antisemite.

Which leaves us one -- and there's one in every crowd.
.
 
Wroclaw said:
No, I meant LGR, not you.

What was your first language? Just curious...
Click to expand...


"Please share them with the group." was posted quoting my response to LGR. Hence my belief that you were perhaps talking to me.

My first language was Nahuatl. I taught myself English when I was in prison for murder.
 
TSR said:
.
Y'know, something odd just occurred to me.

Has there *ever* been a female denier? No, Renouf doesn't count: I'm asking about someone who was *born* a woman.

I can't think of any woman, educated in historiography, that supports this crap...
.
Click to expand...


Have you been watching YouTube clips of Alan Dershowitz again?
 
Revdude said:
And still through all your ******** and nonsense over forty-some posts.
Not one of you can challenge the evidence.
What a clueless bunch you are.
Click to expand...

Sticking your fingers in your ears (or eyes, in this case) is not a recognized form of rebuttal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom