Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[ararem]

Hi Everyone,

Apologies if these points have been raised before , but as you can see , I have just joined the forum .

History is not immutable - who , with any vestige of intellect ,takes Genesis Chapters 1 - 9 at face value ? ( rhetorical question ) Yet for centuries this was taught as undeniable truth .

So what has caused this to change ? - that anathema of all control freak governments and religions - education - bringing along with it enlightenment and the willingness to challenge official dogma .

This has brought a problem of how to maintain order within a society apparently willing to challenge all pronouncements and in response governments have adopted a ' divide to conquer ' strategy.

How many articulate and passionate people have embraced conspiracy theories only to find themselves in an intellectual dead end and ,worse, being made to look stupid ?

Active government participation in conspiracy theory promotion has been used for many years to 'neutralise' many people who otherwise would be thorns in their sides .

I am using the word government because , lets be clear about this , the civil service is the real power and not politicians - however much they might deny the fact .

Holocaust denial is another of these government sponsored activities - completely untraceable , of course ,and is only a variation on the other themes - 9/11 , apollo landings , area 51 , Lockerbie etc etc.

Let's wake up ,everyone, and go after the really important subjects like the suppression of alternative energy research / development by the oil companies - often by acquisition of other companies on the pretext of putting in lots of funding. Why the defence manufacturers love and promote conflicts to sell and 'hot develop ' their products . All of this in connivance with government departments .

There are many more examples .

Anyway, enough of my ramblings and thanks for reading.

From a soon to be police state floating just off Europe.....

ararem

 

[Hans]

Bodies aren't reduced to ash. Everything except the bones burn off and the bones are ground up to create what we call "ash." When you've watched this on a number of occasions, how long did the whole process require? How long did it take before the body was burning hot enough to continue burning without any more fuel? You wouldn't be able to show me a picture of a body that has been completely incinerated because there would be nothing left. So I won't demand the impossible. But I can find enough photographs of bodies floating in the Ganges river to know that not everybody is completely reduced to "ash" before they're dumped into the river.

It's called by convention 'ash' but it contains bone fragments. The Hindus don't ground the bones instead all is placed in the Ganges or gathered up and moved to the Ganges or another accepted place for disposal. Sorry I didn't have my stop watch with me. Not all Hindus are burned, certain categories are thrown directly into the river and in some cases very poor Hindus cannot afford the cost of burning a body and throw it in as the next best thing.

More detail here

http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1343&catid=55&subcatid=354

Interesting that site reports over 3 million Indians are cremated each year - heck of a lot of people - I do recall also the Doms, the caste the deal with the clean up after the fire is complete, I suggest you ask them, the've been doing it for thousands of years

 

[Wroclaw]

Out of the frying pan and into the loony fire...

 

[Gene Alley]

Wrong. Most real historians have relevent degrees, use primary sources and publish their findings in respected magazines.

In fact, that should be "all" real historians.

Deniers don't do any of the above.

Now, how are you doing with that list of valid points made by deniers in this thread?

The evidence points to the fact that many of these peer reviewed "real historians" with relavent degrees have been exposed as BS artists on many occasions. Read Raul Hilberg's cross examination testimony at the 1985 Zundel trial. It is also very problematic that such holocaust superstars like Eli Wiesel and Irene Zisblatt have been shown to be a couple of laughable hucksters.



http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2277/Negationist-Team-3rd-Response-9-29-04


"The natural sciences [like other scholarly disciplines] are extremely conservative and dogmatic. Any corroboration of a paradigm is welcome, whereas any innovation or revision will for a long time meet with resistance; the instinct for preservation (including self-preservation) is stronger than the search for truth. THEREFORE, new findings usually gain acceptance only when sufficient numbers of researchers vouch for them: then the dogmatic status quo topples and a 'scientific revolution' occurs, and a new paradigm replaces the old . . . The bottom line is that no student, no researcher and no layman should believe any facts to be 'conclusively proven', even if the textbooks present them as such . . . ."

~Professor Walter Nagl, PhD. Gentechnologie und Grenzen der Biologie.
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt (1987). Pages 126ff.

11. CONCLUSION

Besides the condescending tone of our opponents, they have not really contributed anything about the existence of the alleged gas chambers in Auschwitz.

They seem to have serious problems understanding the basic physics and chemistry, the basic technical phenomena involved in the implementation of something incredible like homicidal gas chambers for hundreds of thousands of people.

It seems that theirs is rather a belief than a knowledge, a belief that cannot and must not be proven, or even debated in their eyes.

Our opponents have nothing to offer besides relying and quoting from a couple of anti-Revisionists pseudo-scientists and hoaxers like Dr. Green and Dr. Zimmerman. We can read their evasions and nonsense on the Internet ourselves and don't need it repeated.

Our opponents dont seem to grasp the various disinfestation processes and fumigation applicationsfor human dwellings, like barracks, for specific fumigation buildings like BW5a & b at Birkenau, and the DEGESCH Kreislauf-type fumigation chambers, which, because of a preheating system, a circulating system, and a very strong discharge ventilation of about 72 air changes per hour, permit a very short gassing and clearing timenot possible if any of the eyewitness testimony from postwar war crimes trials is to be believed.

Our opponents with their semi-religious beliefs assume that in Krema I the HCN poison gas can quickly drift from the morgue through the cremation room to the outside as if by magic.

What can one say?

And concerning the testimonies of "eyewitnesses," they depend heavily on confessions of former SS-men in German trials of a politically corrupted judicial system as far as the Jewish Holocaust and peculiar NS guilt is concerned.

When it came to the questions how an estimated 130 thousand registered inmates died in Auschwitz they attempt to dispute any explanation that this was probably caused by epidemics, which not only ravaged the Auschwitz camp but also the Majdanek and the Stutthof camps in the eastern wartime cordon sanitaire, and western camps like Belsen upon the government collapse at the end of the war. They of course did not or cannot come up with another explanation besides mass murder fantasies.

About the cremation of the corpses in Auschwitz, the capacity and coke consumption of the existing cremation facilities show that the number of allegedly gassed people could clearly not be cremated with the existing facilities, and the assumption of using cremation pits which were partly under water is plain ridiculous and show with what gullibility our opponents accept the Holocaust hoax. They and their gurus' reliance on some incorrect and probably falsified documents generated from the process of Allied war crimes propaganda is unbelievable. They would probably also accept that water boils at 50 if an SS-man says so or writes this on a piece of paper for a Communist or postwar Inquisition.

With the recent Fritjof Meyer affair in Germany it should be obvious that the matter cannot be studied in an atmosphere of intellectual diversity and no conclusions can be arrived at with any degree of integrity, by law, in key countries and by severe academic opprobrium in others. We reproduce a letter from Revisionist Robert Faurisson on the recent Meyer affair as an Appendix to this response. It should be obvious to the honest student that not much has changed since the 1979 Manifesto of the 34 Monkeys. We find it extremely objectionable that the VT would fall back on such vermiform historiography and dismiss the critical method and the motives of skeptics. Does the V in VT stand for Veritas or Vermin?

What is more curious is that WE, the Negationist Team, have provided the so-called Truth Team with plans, drawings, photographs, and documents, i.e., material evidences, whereas the only time that they have provided something of substance, as in their aerial photos piece, it has been simply wrong material to which they don't even have any idea of its significance.

I think we must underscore this point in conclusion:

The VT has basically only provided confessions and testimoniesand these never quoted let alone from primary sources. The Negationist Team, however, has answered with material evidence.

To move the debate forward it is incumbent upon the Veritas Team at this point to suggest a means of testing their HGC hypothesis that can be independently verified and is empirically repeatable that directly addresses the topic question of this debate:

 

[Cyrix686]

Oh noes, oh crap, they've wheeled out Zisblatt and Wiesel. We're done for! Oh no, they've tried to smear Hillberg and deployed "laughable huckster."

Good Points and Bad Points first Gene, please.

 

[TSR]

Did I say he was in error?

.
Well, if you weren't trying to contradict Nick, and given (by your own admission) that this technique could not have been used during the Holocaust, why did you even bring it up?
.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Um well its a cop-out and if after 104 pages the best you scholars can come up with for an explanation for the Hoax is it "just kinda happened," well... You know, I've seen the whole three ring circus of denier explanation, this took place, that person was there, none of which I'm going to mention because I don't want to revisit those beaten carpets. Saggy threw out Mickey earlier. I've read that before too. Some of these explanations on the hoax have actually gone so far as to contain Historical names and Historical organisations and have been on the whole very elaborate but alas evidence-less and absent when it came to corroboration. Its true, wonderfully paranoid Byzantine works of Art have been painted to explain the Hoax. Some tinged with Jew-hating. Lets cut a long story short... I suppose "kinda happened" has a minimalist economy Dogzilla, I'll grant you that. But nothing else.

Thanks for dropping my jaw. Amazing stuff.

It kinda happened can be likened to the outrageous bank robbery/robbers where the lookout never sees any authorities or any citizens seemingly aware a bank robbery is in progress. The lookout recommends hitting another larger bank and so forth and so on.

 

[TSR]

The evidence points to the fact that many of these peer reviewed "real historians" with relavent degrees have been exposed as BS artists on many occasions.

.
Really? *Many* historians? On *many* occasions? BS artists?

Perhaps you can (after you're done with those 9 questions -- funny that you continue to have time to post your ... misguided opinions rather than doing the research you said was needed) detail say, a dozen real historians, each having been exposed as a BS artist at least three times each?

Or, what is more likely, you'll continue to to avoid supporting any of *your* BS, just like, say, CM or Saggy. Or Unka Ernie, or Muchos Nombres, or Irving, or Mattagno, or Leuchter, or ... well, everyone who isn't ideologically driven to deny established history gets the picture.
.

Read Raul Hilberg's cross examination testimony at the 1985 Zundel trial.

.
What, *specifically*, about his testimony "exposes him as a BS artist"?
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Magic wands were never available to perform tasks and labor in the history of history.

Previously I posted the word leichenkeller which is German for mortuaries. The holohoaxers say it was a gas chamber. Why?

I said explain how a significant action that was part of the Holocaust was impossible--not to make bad jokes, not to assert again that the acts were impossible, and not to discuss terminology. I guess you can't explain, only assert what you believe, no matter how groundless.

 

[Wroclaw]

Wanna bet that Walter Nagl is actually Germar Rudolf?

 

[Gene Alley]

.
Really? *Many* historians? On *many* occasions? BS artists?

Perhaps you can (after you're done with those 9 questions -- funny that you continue to have time to post your ... misguided opinions rather than doing the research you said was needed) detail say, a dozen real historians, each having been exposed as a BS artist at least three times each?

Or, what is more likely, you'll continue to to avoid supporting any of *your* BS, just like, say, CM or Saggy. Or Unka Ernie, or Muchos Nombres, or Irving, or Mattagno, or Leuchter, or ... well, everyone who isn't ideologically driven to deny established history gets the picture.
.
Read Raul Hilberg's cross examination testimony at the 1985 Zundel trial.

.

.[/QUOTE]

The gentlemen who took the revistionist position at the scholars debate over at RODOH did an excellent job of exposing some of the inconsistencies regarding the "established history" concerning that era. That's why I posted that particular link. I suggest anyone who has any questions regarding the holocaust read that entire debate. Both sides made interesting points.

As far as playing the silly 24 hour a day nit picking game here on JREF with a bunch of full time professionals, I think I'll pass, as it would be too time consuming and I actually have a life outside of holocaustia. But, I'll continue to read both sides of the issue and chime in here when I find something that might be useful to people who are looking into this issue.

Thanks

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2277/Negationist-Team-3rd-Response-9-29-04

The Negationist Team would like to reiterate Dr. Faurissons words:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It only remains to be said that if Germany's accusers are not satisfied with these studies, they are at liberty to initiate their own specialist's report. What has kept them from doing it publicly, in broad daylight, these past fifty years? []

Since 2 July 1982, at the end of an international symposium the exterminationists had organized at the Sorbonne (Paris) to attempt to answer me, they had shown themselves incapable of producing the slightest proof of the existence and the operation of a single gas chamber. In March of 1992, I hurled my challenge:


"Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!"

Jean-Claude Pressac, on whom the exterminationists so much counted, had proven himself incapable of bringing forth anything but what he called "traces of the crime," and he had taken great care not to provide us with a total physical representation of the weapon used in the crime. []

At the same time, however, transforming the Holocaust of the Jews into a religious belief, this time divested of all material content, they will be only the more inflexible in denouncing authentic Revisionists as deniers, or negationists, as being intolerant, heartless, basely materialistic and hostile to the free expression of religious sentiments. For those Jews, the true Revisionists will thus continue to be diabolical in spirit even if they must be acknowledged to be in the right from a factual point of view.

The Revisionists are neither diabolical nor negative. By no means are they naysayers. They are positive in outlook. At the conclusion of their researchwhich is positivist in characterthey affirm that certain beliefs are just myths. Such myths are harmful in that they feed hatred. [NT emphasis.] The Revisionists strive to describe what has taken place and not what has not taken place. In sum and substance, what they proclaim to a wretched humanity is good news. Seeking only historical accuracy, they find themselves fighting against calumny and for justice. They have suffered and they will continue to suffer, but I believe, all things considered, that history will declare them right and render them justice.

~ Dr. Robert Faurisson, September 23, 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[LemmyCaution]

Yeah, I don't think any of us see an organized "conspiracy" that planned a holocaust disinformation campaign in advance. It's not something that was organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for this process.

It just kinda happened.

It just kinda happened? Well, ok. Where do you get that I referred to "an organized 'conspiracy' that was planned"? You are just picking up little grey rabbit's strawman. I took no position on how it happened. I simply ticked off some hallmarks of proper historical works -- even asked for a proper history. I will let you in on a secret: I was not thinking of conspiracies at all, of course not, despite the noxious weed bunny is trying to grow here, and which you are trying to help fertilize. No, I thought of my major undergraduate paper and my major graduate school paper (both on American history, and both in the vein of social history) and the sorts of things that went into those projects.

See, even when things just kinda happen, people do things, make decisions, take actions, leave behind evidence: and describing what people did as things kinda happened is one way, I guess, to think about writing history.

In other words, your cop out fails badly as bunny's. Come on guys, get to it. A proper historical narrative of the hoax and how it just kinda happened, the way a general strike broke out in Philadelphia in 1835, just kinda happening.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Wanna bet that Walter Nagl is actually Germar Rudolf?

I don't bet people who owe me more than $49.

 

[Wroclaw]

The gentlemen who took the revistionist position at the scholars debate over at RODOH did an excellent job of exposing some of the inconsistencies regarding the "established history" concerning that era.

I'm sorry, but are you high on pot? The denier opening statement at RODOH offered zero point zero percent science. As in none whatsoever. As in zilcho. As in Zippy the Pinhead.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Really? Then ask Saggy why he continues to allege that the six million was "planned" and already reported in 1906?

Do you think this --

According to DEFRA the number of animals killed during the 2001 Foot-and-mouth outbreak was in the region of 6 million

-- is coincidental? I mean, it is awfully strange that the number 6 million, which also shows up in the Torah and has been used in newspapers, would be involved. There are connections to these things.

 

[Wroclaw]

I don't bet people who owe me more than $49.

Again: You will receive this money over lunch.

 

[Gene Alley]

I'm sorry, but are you high on pot? The denier opening statement at RODOH offered zero point zero percent science. As in none whatsoever. As in zilcho. As in Zippy the Pinhead.

That's exactly what their opponents in the debate said. That's a big surprise! Were you one of the participants? I am not high on pot, but what does that have to do with anything? See what I mean about silly nit picking?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Most "real historians" are those who go along to get along.

Not the ones I have known. Most of those "real historians" were looking for sacred cows and common views to topple. For better or worse, they wanted to make a name for themselves, and getting something new or different appealed to many of them. They wanted to challenge the dominant school of thought in their field. Most, not all, but most. The hope of most was not to write a synthesis of what everyone else had done but to upset things with something fresh and new they'd done; it was to see themselves knocking down something and putting something new in its place--method, interpretation, evidence. I am guessing you are sitting watching TV right now--Pirates no doubt--with a historian friend, so you have something to trot out when people point out to you that your post demonstrates that you are most unlikely to have ever met a historian, attended a departmental meeting in a university history department, followed a historical debate.

Edit to fix sacred cows, which was originally written as scared cows, perhaps after reading too much of Clayton's musings on how cow carcasses were dealt with in the UK.

 

[Wroclaw]

Do you think this -- -- is coincidental? I mean, it is awfully strange that the number 6 million, which also shows up in the Torah and has been used in newspapers, would be involved. There are connections to these things.

Damn you! Speak again of this amongst the goyim and we shall seize your ZOG decoder ring!

 

[TSR]

The gentlemen who took the revistionist position at the scholars debate over at RODOH did an excellent job of exposing some of the inconsistencies regarding the "established history" concerning that era.

.
And yet, you run from actually detailing any of these 'inconsistencies', none of which amount to 'many' historians being demonstrated on 'many' occasions to have been 'BS artists'.

And no, as has been pointed out, the denier team over there exposed only the same ideologically driven ignorance you have done here.
.

That's why I posted that particular link. I suggest anyone who has any questions regarding the holocaust read that entire debate. Both sides made interesting points.

.
You mean like the several good points in this thread which you were asked up front for and yet cannot specify?
.

As far as playing the silly 24 hour a day nit picking game here on JREF with a bunch of full time professionals, I think I'll pass, as it would be too time consuming and I actually have a life outside of holocaustia.

.
So far as I know, there is only one full time professional historian in this thread, that being Nick.

But how completely expected that you choose to run away from supporting a *single* one of your claims with actual evidence.
.

But, I'll continue to read both sides of the issue and chime in here when I find something that might be useful to people who are looking into this issue.

.
You know what would be *really* useful?

For you to actually answer the Nine Questions and then address your lies about BS artists.
.