• 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 General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dogzilla said:
Says the man who has never tried to keep a fire burning with fresh wood.
Click to expand...

Says the man who apparently tries to light his fireplace with gasoline.

What? You don't use gasoline?

See, the Nazis used gasoline to start fires when they used wood for fuel. That's just one way in which the Nazis' burning of bodies and a fireplace are not comparable.

You can't compare the environment of a holocaust burning pit with a forest fire. And even a forest fire isn't going spread very far if the only fuel is living trees or even fresh cut wood. Even eucalyptus needs to be dry.
Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia:

As the front approaches, the fire heats both the surrounding air and woody material through convection and thermal radiation. First, wood is dried as water is vaporized at a temperature of 100 °C (212 °F). Next, the pyrolysis of wood at 230 °C (450 °F) releases flammable gases. Finally, wood can smolder at 380 °C (720 °F) or, when heated sufficiently, ignite at 590 °C (1,000 °F).[41][42] Even before the flames of a wildfire arrive at a particular location, heat transfer from the wildfire front warms the air to 800 °C (1,470 °F), which pre-heats and dries flammable materials, causing materials to ignite faster and allowing the fire to spread faster.
Click to expand...

Need to explain that with smaller words?

Not at the AR camps.
Click to expand...

Really? Who says they cremated bodies in pits at the AR camps?

The water table was a constant problem. The SS was always draining parts of the camp. You are aware that if you drain a swamp and don't divert the source of the moisture you'll need to continuously drain the swamp to keep it dry?
Click to expand...

The SS drained specific parts of the camp when the need arose. When they needed to resort to pit-burning, they drained near the pits.

You seem to think that repeating the idea that pit-burning went on constantly at Birkenau will make it "part of the narrative." It isn't.

Please demonstrate what? That Barbarossa was scheduled early than it's actual start date or that mass graves were dug over the winter at the AR camps?
Click to expand...

Mass graves dug over the winter, please.

They didn't have pre-existing ditches at the AR camps large enough to hold all the bodies.
Click to expand...

Really? There was an anti-tank trench at Belzec; Arad mentions it in his book on the AR camps. How big do you think a trench has to be to stop a tank?

I'll wait.
 
Wroclaw said:
Really? Who says they cremated bodies in pits at the AR camps?
Click to expand...
In regards to Treblinka, some holocaust deniers complain "Why were not all bodies extracted and cremated?" I found a quote from Oskar Strawczynski, a slave worker who removed the bodies for cremation at Treblinka.
The graves could never be emptied entirely, because blood mixed with water accumulated at the bottom. Motorized pumps were set up to draw it out. However, they could never manage to drain the bottom few meters, and so the graves were simply covered over.

I am aware that the Treblinka II bodies were cremated above ground on railway "rails" but some else needs to find this citation or witness statement to confirm this. i was just adding information about the water table levels as it supports your argument.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
In regards to Treblinka, some holocaust deniers complain "Why were not all bodies extracted and cremated?" I found a quote from Oskar Strawczynski, a slave worker who removed the bodies for cremation at Treblinka.
The graves could never be emptied entirely, because blood mixed with water accumulated at the bottom. Motorized pumps were set up to draw it out. However, they could never manage to drain the bottom few meters, and so the graves were simply covered over.

I am aware that the Treblinka II bodies were cremated above ground on railway "rails" but some else needs to find this citation or witness statement to confirm this. i was just adding information about the water table levels as it supports your argument.
Click to expand...

Is that like "We didn't have time to finish digging before the end of our shift so we simply covered over the graves"?

In other words it means absolutely nothing.

It's idiocy. Bringing out the motorized pumps to drain recently dug up graves? And blood mixing with the water? How the hell would that happen?
 
What piece (or type) of evidence would you require to accept the truth of the Holocaust?
 
Wroclaw said:
Oh, goody, you're also an expert on the Holodomor. And on Zyklon-B as I recall! Is there anything you're not an expert on?
Click to expand...

Actually I wouldn't call myself an expert on the Holodomar nor am I very interested in it. I do know something about Zyklon B, cyanide and chemistry - and certainly a lot more than you.
Way to jump to conclusions.

I said, "Depending on location, the Jewish death toll under the Bolsheviks were perhaps as high as ten percent of the overall number killed, which is significantly higher than the overall percentage of Jews in the general population."

Now, you note that the 1.4% of the victims of the Holodomor overall were Jewish.

You would agree, however, would you not, that there were places within Ukraine that had higher Jewish populations than others?

My wife's grandmother came from a town in Ukraine just north of Kiev. She apparently used to sell bread in the city, which was within walking distance. Back then, Jews weren't allowed to live in the city proper unless there were deemed important in some way. She left Ukraine in 1922 — the civil war had not fully ended yet. She was twelve years old at the time. To assume that the demographic would have shifted that much within ten years is assuming, I think, that the Soviet government in Stalin's early years was far more efficient than it actually was.

The point? In the town where my wife's grandmother actually lived, there were no Gentiles. What percentage of the victims of the famine in that town were Jews, do you think?

And, yes, I can tell you for certain that the famine hit that town.
Click to expand...

What a confused ramble. Assuming that your wife's grandmother's town was all Jewish, logically the death-toll during the famine would have been 100% Jewish.

However, taken as a whole, of those who died during the famine (not all direct victims of malnutrition and a portion of whom would have died naturally 1.4% were Jewish - according to modern research.

That is about 25% of the rate that Ukrainians suffered. In fact, it is possible that the number of Jewish deaths was only moderately elevated above what would have occurred normally.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
In regards to Treblinka, some holocaust deniers complain "Why were not all bodies extracted and cremated?" I found a quote from Oskar Strawczynski, a slave worker who removed the bodies for cremation at Treblinka.
The graves could never be emptied entirely, because blood mixed with water accumulated at the bottom. Motorized pumps were set up to draw it out. However, they could never manage to drain the bottom few meters, and so the graves were simply covered over.

I am aware that the Treblinka II bodies were cremated above ground on railway "rails" but some else needs to find this citation or witness statement to confirm this. i was just adding information about the water table levels as it supports your argument.
Click to expand...

If this was the case one would presume the famous Treblinka well would have been rather polluted.

Actually if you go a km down the road you see a rather large gravel pit that is more than 10 meters deep and always looks pretty dry to me. So I assuming Oscar is another lie-witness.

Actually if he talks about giant graves at Treblinka II he has to be a lie-witness doesn't he?
 
little grey rabbit said:
Actually I wouldn't call myself an expert on the Holodomar nor am I very interested in it. I do know something about Zyklon B, cyanide and chemistry - and certainly a lot more than you.
Click to expand...

That must be why you refused to debate the issues.

What a confused ramble. Assuming that your wife's grandmother's town was all Jewish, logically the death-toll during the famine would have been 100% Jewish.
Click to expand...

Yes.

However, taken as a whole, of those who died during the famine (not all direct victims of malnutrition and a portion of whom would have died naturally 1.4% were Jewish - according to modern research.
Click to expand...

Which would have been my point. And in a town with no Jews, the death toll would have been 0% Jewish, n'est-ce pas?

That is about 25% of the rate that Ukrainians suffered. In fact, it is possible that the number of Jewish deaths was only moderately elevated above what would have occurred normally.
Click to expand...

That's probably true.

I was merely pointing out that the Jewish death rate varied from town to town, and that in some places, it was as high as 10%. I'm sure that there were rates of Ukrainian mortality that were higher that 6% or 7%, depending on the location.
 
little grey rabbit said:
If this was the case one would presume the famous Treblinka well would have been rather polluted.
Click to expand...

Right here:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/12/well-well-well.html

Actually if you go a km down the road you see a rather large gravel pit that is more than 10 meters deep and always looks pretty dry to me. So I assuming Oscar is another lie-witness.
Click to expand...

There are any number of reasons that this might have been the case. To therefore assume someone is lying is, to say the least, stupid.

Actually if he talks about giant graves at Treblinka II he has to be a lie-witness doesn't he?
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
Wroclaw said:
Two things: (1) There are still 69 witnesses — but only seven are confirmed (by me) eyewitnesses (so far); (2) You haven't proved anyone was a perjurer.



The existence of different lists does not mean one is right and not the other. It's possible both are incomplete. I haven't looked into it very far yet.
.
Click to expand...

You seem to be falling back into your old dishonest habits of misrepresentation. It is true that Dr Terry was compiling a list, but that was because he read Dr Mock's claim and understood it to be meaning eye-witnesses -and I agree with Dr Terry here: that was almost certainly Dr Mock's intent.

However you seem to be saying you don't have 69 eye-witnesses and even your 69 hearsay witnesses seem not to have witnessed very hard or very much.

Something of a come-down - n'est-ce pas?
 
Wroclaw said:
Right here:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/12/well-well-well.html
Click to expand...

Thats just a bunch of hand-waving pseudo science from a couple of people who have no qualifications in what they are trying to discuss:
a lawyer, an auditor and a part-time English lecturer.

As I said already, the physical evidence quite close at hand shows no indication of a water table at a much deeper depth.
Krege's scans went down to 6 or 7 meters I believe, and showed nothing to indicate a water table - or mass earth disturbances either for that matter.

I have testimony from someone who claimed to have helped construct the camp and it is very clear that a bore well was sunk - to quite a number of meters deep - and a hand pump was used.

So your witness is a lie-witness, on the plus side for Team Insanity there is no public health considerations to drinking water from burying 700 000 corpses 50 meters away.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I mean, really, why would the Germans go to the expense to bring and waste the manpower required to oversee millions of people to Poland for ritual murder?
Click to expand...


Why would Germany go to through the expense and waste the manpower to produce the militarily useless V-1 and V-2 weapons systems? Because its leadership, starting with Hitler at the top, was all too frequently disconnected from reality. (Which was fortunate for the Allies, since it made the task of defeating Germany less costly than it might otherwise have been - though it was already costly enough.)
 
Wroclaw said:
I was merely pointing out that the Jewish death rate varied from town to town, and that in some places, it was as high as 10%. I'm sure that there were rates of Ukrainian mortality that were higher that 6% or 7%, depending on the location.
Click to expand...

You are so hopelessly confused there is little point in discussing these issues with you.

The 1.5% of famine victims being Jewish refers to their share of the entire death toll, it does not mean that 1.5% of Jews died.

If you take seriously the claims that 10 million people died in the famine (which I don't) then the death rate of Ukrainians was 30% overall. If you take a figure of 5 million (my suspicion is that is likely to be too high also - but I wouldn't argue the point) then you are looking at a death-rate of approx 15%

But I am not sure that you have any point but are either hopeless confused or trying to burying the issue under meaningless waffle.
 
little grey rabbit said:
You seem to be falling back into your old dishonest habits of misrepresentation. It is true that Dr Terry was compiling a list, but that was because he read Dr Mock's claim and understood it to be meaning eye-witnesses -and I agree with Dr Terry here: that was almost certainly Dr Mock's intent.
Click to expand...

Tell you what, Bunny: Address me, and not Dr. Terry or Dr. Mock. D'accord?

However you seem to be saying you don't have 69 eye-witnesses and even your 69 hearsay witnesses seem not to have witnessed very hard or very much.
Click to expand...

I'll try to use small words: There are still all 69 witnesses to discuss. However, not all of them were eyewitnesses.

Stop playing stupid.

Something of a come-down - n'est-ce pas?
Click to expand...

Whatever. That you are not debating these things says a lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom