Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gene Alley said:
That's exactly what their opponents in the debate said. That's a big surprise!
Click to expand...

Yes, imagine that. Both I and the members of the Veritas Team (and no, I was not a member of that team) came to the same conclusion about Countess et al., i.e., that they hadn't engaged in a scientific debate. Rather, the Veritas Team compiled a lengthy volume and evidence, and Countess et al., well, didn't.

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?
Click to expand...

It isn't silly nit-picking if someone's perception is that off.
 
TSR said:
.
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.
Click to expand...
When he was a-revising and younger and tilting at the windmills, the non-degreed historian Mr Irving was the first to call the Hitler diaries a hoax, and the last to declare them authentic. I believe that this is what he had in mind.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Kinda happened." in a developed shape.

Keep going with this Clayton and a Stundie might come out of what you are forming.
 
LemmyCaution said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read that the destroy radius from farm of origin included 10 million.
 
LemmyCaution said:
Not the ones I have known. Most of those "real historians" were looking for scared 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.
Click to expand...


The Pirates are off today and open a three game set against the Cardinals tomorrow. You are right, I can't say that I have ever knowingly met a true historian, attended a departmental meeting at at a university history department or followed an historical debate in the classic sense. However I believe that some of those who took the negationist position in the debate I cited certainly have, as have many others who have the same general opinion regarding the topic of this discussion.

BTW: Thanks for reerring me to the RODOH site as I found it a bit more informative and objective than the CODOH or this forum which both seem to be one sided with a lot of silly name calling. Kind of like Fox vs MSNBC politically speaking, both full of it. However, it was rather interesting that my name was mentioned over there at RODOH in a funny way. I guess one of those who post on both forums was asking if anyone knew who I was. Pretty funny.
 
TSR said:
.
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.
.

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

.
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.
.

.
You know what would be *really* useful?

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

Sounds like a guy on the playground calling me a CHICKEN.:):) But again, I'll pass and just play it my way, thanks. And no, it wouldn't be useful and would be a real pain in the @.

Cheers
 
Gene Alley said:
The Pirates are off today and open a three game set against the Cardinals tomorrow. You are right, I can't say that I have ever knowingly met a true historian, attended a departmental meeting at at a university history department or followed an historical debate in the classic sense. However I believe that some of those who took the negationist position in the debate I cited certainly have, as have many others who have the same general opinion regarding the topic of this discussion.

BTW: Thanks for reerring me to the RODOH site as I found it a bit more informative and objective than the CODOH or this forum which both seem to be one sided with a lot of silly name calling. Kind of like Fox vs MSNBC politically speaking, both full of it. However, it was rather interesting that my name was mentioned over there at RODOH in a funny way. I guess one of those who post on both forums was asking if anyone knew who I was. Pretty funny.
Click to expand...
Time to fess up, I am the culprit, Gene, as I post there as KentFord9 and here as LemmyCaution. In real life, I am Mario Guerrero.

Also, my time in departments of history is long past . . . and I don't know whether 30 years hence most historians are miserable grubbing careerists or not. They weren't during my time. But I doubt that most Revs would have cottoned much to that crowd, as it was somewhat Red inclined. From what I read on the Third Reich, I can say that, by the standards of historical study, not the I-doubt-it standard of denial, the work is very fine, full of vigorous debate. It puts the lie to the claim Revs make that there is an official story.
 
Last edited:
Gene Alley said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, evidence doesn't point to that. What evidence does point to is that the so called "revisionists" have been exposed as BS artists on may occasions.

See for example the David Irving libel trial.
 
Gene Alley said:
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
Click to expand...

Oh no, you don't. You still haven't posted your list of valid points the deniers have made in this thread, and you still haven't answered any of the many questions posed to you since you popped into this discussion. Are you really going to just run away from that?
 
uke2se said:
No, evidence doesn't point to that. What evidence does point to is that the so called "revisionists" have been exposed as BS artists on may occasions.

See for example the David Irving libel trial.
Click to expand...
Gene,

In addition to uke2se's suggestion, and mine also regarding Mr Irving, please consider a piece like this one:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/01/irene-zisblatt-diamond-girl-fact-or.html

Capable historians like Joachim Neander do not rely on a single source, one data point, each and every witness. They take the evidence as a whole and work with it, as Dr Neander does here, in the case of one supposed witness, to make judgments, draw conclusions, and interpret the body of evidence.

LC
 
LemmyCaution said:
Time to fess up, I am the culprit, Gene, as I post there as KentFord9 and here as LemmyCaution. In real life, I am Mario Guerrero.

Also, my time in departments of history is long past . . . and I don't know whether 30 years hence most historians are miserable grubbing careerists or not. They weren't during my time. But I doubt that most Revs would have cottoned much to that crowd, as it was somewhat Red inclined. From what I read on the Third Reich, I can say that, by the standards of historical study, not the I-doubt-it standard of denial, the work is very fine, full of vigorous debate. It puts the lie to the claim Revs make that there is an official story.
Click to expand...

You should have just asked me straight up Mario. It's ok, I was rather flattered that you wanted to know who this troll Gene Alley was. :):)
 
I find this remarkable. Ahem. Deniers on this thread frequently toss around this thing they call the hoax or the holohoax. Very often they say, much as Saggy did, that the hoax is a dishonest, made-up version of events - and that it was made up by the Jews:
Quite a few people know that the holohoax did not happen. But that's just half of the story, the actual history of what happened or didn't happen to the Jews during WW II. The other half is the construction of the hoax, the Jews were lying about a holocaust of six million Jews starting in 1906 !
Click to expand...
So a description of the evolution or creation, however they think it came about, of the hoax, as a historical phenomenon like any other, should be easy for deniers, its being one of their constants. They should be able to provide such a narrative in their sleep, as it is one of the core claims. But they don't share this history with us when asked for it. One of them falls mostly silent. Another strawmans about great men, and another jumps on the bandwagon adding in conspiracies. All beside the point, all blatant and really feeble and sad attempts to evade the request. But why? The hoax is a core plank. They talk about it all the time. Why not explain its history? It should be simple. Shouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
Self serving Holocaust historians abound.

Isn't lying by omission still lying? Or does the Holocaust and its liars get a pass? Muller, Elie, Simon, RaisedbyWolvesgirl.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Self serving Holocaust historians abound.

Isn't lying by omission still lying? Or does the Holocaust and its liars get a pass? Muller, Elie, Simon, RaisedbyWolvesgirl.
Click to expand...
Please try following along. Did you even read Dr Neander's piece?

And, no, people who falsely pass themselves off as survivors who aren't do not "get a pass." When dealing with witnesses and memoirists, "real historians, as many of us have tried to tell you, weed out imposters, liars, people whose testimonies are suspect. Sad but true, big events, like the war in Vietnam, attract many dubious people--some of them using the events for their own purposes, some of them having personal issues they deal with by attaching themselves to such events. This is really pretty pedestrian stuff.

I myself have many difficulties with Elie Wiesel, having read short bits by him, being turned off by them enough not to make time for his books. On the other hand, I very rarely see his work cited by historians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom