Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[TSR]

How is it that you can use your own actual name and post absurdity after absurdity? I confess I'm amazed.

.
How is it that you can propose an experiment and then refuse to do anything to make it happen?

Or insist that a little portal directly to the weather outside is a good feature to have for a shower room?

Or continuously claim that a menagerie which not a single child ever visited was "a childrens' zoo"?

Or that the Battle of the Bulge never happened, the Vatican does not exist and the existence of Rudolf Hess was a degenerate lie?
.

 

[Clayton Moore]

How is it that you can use your own actual name and post absurdity after absurdity? I confess I'm amazed.

It's a divine right, anything goes, wink wink nudge nudge thing.

 

[Robrob]

13.5 million Jews in the world. That one or two might be CT nuts isn't surprising.

 

[Clayton Moore]

But yes, the JDL was roundly denounced by all of mainstream Jewry and its representative organizations in its time.

Like Spielberg was denounced for his lying documentary?
Like Simon was denounced for his lies?
Like Wiesel was denounced for his lies?
Like Zizblatt was denounced for her lies?


Exactly.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Putting what LL edited out in a way that's more compatible with the Member Agreement: Why would people who hate jews enough to slaughter them by the millions not put a soccer field next to their gas chamber?

Why would nazis playing soccer be any more bothered by jews dying en masse nearby than my niece and nephews are by the flesh of quasi-innocent cows being roasted near where they are playing tag?

If you saw the video you would have noticed most of the observers and players were not guards.

 

[TSR]

Like Spielberg was denounced for his lying documentary?
Like Simon was denounced for his lies?
Like Wiesel was denounced for his lies?
Like Zizblatt was denounced for her lies?

.
No, more like completely
UNlike Rudolf was denounced by denier chimps for his lies.
UNlike Zundel was denounced by denier chimps for his lies.
UNlike Irving was denounced by denier chimps for his lies.
and
UNlike you admitting the lies you've posted.

Also, UNlike your denunciation of The Order, Eric Hunt and von Brunn.
.

Exactly.

.
Indeed.
.

 

[Wroclaw]

Like Spielberg was denounced for his lying documentary?
Like Simon was denounced for his lies?
Like Wiesel was denounced for his lies?
Like Zizblatt was denounced for her lies?

Exactly.

See the difference between the JDL, on the one hand, and Spielberg, Wiesenthal, Wiesel, and Zisblatt, on the other, is levels of being aware of lies in the first place. (Plus, there's the whole issue of tying together "lying" and threats of violence, which is problematic on its face. But I digress.)

Don't know if you remember this, but the JDL kind of become nationally well known when they picketed the Oscars at which Vanessa Redgrave was nominated for an award. Before that, they were mainly known in NYC but not every much outside.

Now, Spielberg is very well known, and Wiesenthal and Wiesel marginally so. But how well do people know that they've said dishonest things, if they even have in the first place? And do you think even one out of ten Jews even knows who Irene Zisblatt is?

You're attaching too much importance to the status of these people among Jews, and that includes the JDL, by the way. Furthermore, the allegation of lying is quite different from a provable history of violence. Ergo, the levels of denunciation vary.

 

[Dogzilla]

Dogzilla, if I may:

Nick suggested that you compare Hilberg's 1961 study of the Holocaust (1941-1945) with Conquest's 1968 study of the Great Purges (1935-1938), as they cover periods of history that were relatively close in time, and they were only written seven years apart, so presumably the methodology would be closer. (Further, though I don't know that this was relevant, they are both considered "conservatives," so the studies might have had some crossover there as well; I don't know as I have not read Conquest.)

Your comparison with the Exodus is invalid for several reasons, most of which can be identified above. E.g., the Exodus, dated using Biblical methodology, took place around 1250 BC. Thus, it is incomparable to the Holocaust by about 3,000 years. Further, there is little or no written evidence of the Exodus other than the Bible, which, needless to say, is a highly problematic text. I.e., there are no Egyptian government documents to help us out. Of course, there is also no eyewitness testimony, as any alleged witnesses to the Exodus are long dead.

If you don't see that it's not a clear comparison, then you're simply not trying.

I'm not comparing Exodus with the holocaust. I'm comparing one man's interpretation of the validity of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' in the context of an historical event with the same man's interpretation of the validity of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' in the context of an historical event.

The fact that we're talking about different historical events is why the comparison works.

 

[TSR]

The fact that we're talking about different historical events is why the comparison works.

.
And the fact that in one case, he was referring to the absence of evidence for one microdetail out of a whole series of events, and in the other the near total absence of evidence for the entire series of events is why it does not.

This has been pointed out to you by multiple posters in posts you glossed over to frame this reply.

All of this in 'support' of your whine that evidence is handled differently for the Holocaust.

So, if you are going to stick to this comparison and insist that it is valid, you obviously have evidence of the types which document the Holocaust to support the biblical account of the Exodus.

That being the case, please present (just to repeat examples which seem to have caused you enough discomfort to have run from) a contemporary Egyptian document discussing the sudden loss of a group of workers, forensic evidence of the Golden Calf, and at least one non-Biblical account regarding that snake.

That ball is apparently building a nice little ranch-style home in your court...
.

 

[MG1962]

I'm not comparing Exodus with the holocaust. I'm comparing one man's interpretation of the validity of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' in the context of an historical event with the same man's interpretation of the validity of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' in the context of an historical event.

The fact that we're talking about different historical events is why the comparison works.

No because the argument invalidates crossing streams of evidence to another outcome. In the example of Exodus, excluding any Egyptian references the archeology at the other end of the journey doesn't match. Example Jericoh had been abandoned long before the Hebrews got there, but the Biblical account points to a thriving community

 

[Nick Terry]

I'm not comparing Exodus with the holocaust. I'm comparing one man's interpretation of the validity of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' in the context of an historical event with the same man's interpretation of the validity of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' in the context of an historical event.

The fact that we're talking about different historical events is why the comparison works.

Except you haven't actually specified the details. Given that one instance is Shermer speaking to David Cole I'm going to assume, unless you correct me, that Cole claimed some particular type of evidence is absent for one particular gas chamber, as yet unnamed by Dogzilla, who is conflating the singular gas chamber to the entire Holocaust.

The other example seems to be a blanket absence of archaeological evidence relating to the Exodus.

You can spell out the details properly since I (and many others) don't do YouTube.

You certainly have caught Shermer in a sloppy use of language, I'll grant you that much. But as Shermer is a professional skeptic and not a historian of the Holocaust, this really doesn't help you very much in supporting your assertion that the Holocaust is held to a different standard of evidence either by historians or more generally.

Especially when it seems fairly obvious that in one case Shermer was responding to a point of detail (as deniers don't know any other way of arguing), in the other there is a gaping absence of evidence full stop.

 

[Wroclaw]

Also, Shermer didn't coin that phrase, and it doesn't really have to do with preponderance of evidence, so much as it is a rebuttal to the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

As far as the comparison of the Holocaust and the Exodus, they are still not comparable because of the different weights of other forms of evidence that are available for either, i.e., volumes for the Holocaust and one faith-inspired book (Exodus) for the Exodus.

 

[Mondial]

Amazing. Perfectly matter of fact, the thing is a total hoax. Didn't happen. Complete with references.

Is this guy for real, with a real name?

I don't know much about him. I only came across that link about a week ago. He does have a Facebook page.

 

[Mondial]

The holocaust happened. Those who question that it occurred need to be ignored, not given a forum for monomania.

Why is JREF a forum for this stuff?

I'm new here, but please note that I ask only one question and it's not rhetorical. I'm prepared to agree with the rationale, though I can't imagine what it might be.

Thanks.

JREF is a forum for skeptics and skeptical thinking. People have a right to be skeptical of the holocaust or any other historical event. If you don't like people being skeptical why are you here? Have you actually looked at what holocaust skeptics have to say? Try watching the documentaries at www.holocaustdenialvideos.com and www.holocaustdenier.com It might surprise you that due to media censorship many people are unaware that prominent holocaust promoters such as Elie Wiesel www.eliewieseltattoo.com and Simon Wiesenthal www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesenthal.shtml are frauds.

 

[TSR]

JREF is a forum for skeptics and skeptical thinking. People have a right to be skeptical of the holocaust or any other historical event.

.
Yes, they do. What they *don't* have the "right" to (here, anyway) is to ignore or lie about the evidence.

Which is what deniers do.
.

If you don't like people being skeptical why are you here? Have you actually looked at what holocaust skeptics have to say? Try watching the documentaries at www.holocaustdenialvideos.com and www.holocaustdenier.com

.
... and then you can, for example, look at the information here for the first and earlier in this thread for the second to learn more of denier chimps' distortions and disdain for the rule of law.
.

It might surprise you that due to media censorship many people are unaware that prominent holocaust promoters such as Elie Wiesel www.eliewieseltattoo.com and Simon Wiesenthal www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesenthal.shtml are frauds.

.
And it apparently comes as a major surprize to you that even if your libels were true IT DOESN'T MATTER.

The Holocaust is far more than the sum total of memories from two men, in the same way that all of those fake Medal of Honour awardees do not mean that the wars they talked about never happened.

That you try to pretend that it does matter is yet another denier tactic known as the "falsus in uno" fallacy. Or do you *really* want to get into a p*ssing contest over whether "Holocaust promoters" or denier chimps such as Rudolf, Zundel and Irving (or several other rabid deniers here) are guilty of far more frequent and egregious assaults on the truth?
.

 

[Walter Ego]

No, the point I was making was that deniers are not prosecuted in the US for advocating revisionism.

They're not actually persecuted, either. Random acts conducted by fringe groups do not constitute persecution. Deniers like Arthur Butz still hold down their jobs. Robert Countess held down his job as a professor until his death from a brain tumour.

If you disagree, please list all the Holocaust revisionists who have lost their jobs in the United States solely because of their beliefs becoming known.

There were cases in the U.S. (more than one, I believe) of high school teachers teaching right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (the usual ZOG, the Jews control the government and media stuff) to their students.

I don't recall the details or if Holocaust denial was part of the "history" being taught by these teachers, but at least one case resulted in administrative action (a TV movie with Ronnie Cox as the teacher was based on that case).

Dismayingly, in the case mentioned above, only a minority of the parents thought their kids were being harmed or the teachers were doing anything wrong.

 

[Pacal]

There were cases in the U.S. (more than one, I believe) of high school teachers teaching right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (the usual ZOG, the Jews control the government and media stuff) to their students.

I don't recall the details or if Holocaust denial was part of the "history" being taught by these teachers, but at least one case resulted in administrative action (a TV movie with Ronnie Cox as the teacher was based on that case).

Dismayingly, in the case mentioned above, only a minority of the parents thought their kids were being harmed or the teachers were doing anything wrong.

There was a case c. 30 years ago in Canada of a teacher named Keestra who taught anti-semitic / conspiracy crap in a history classroom along with Holocaust denial.

 

[Wroclaw]

Importantly, anyone fired under such circumstances were high school teachers and not college professors. The teaching of children is a different matter than the teaching of adults.

 

[TSR]

.
That was "Scandal in a Small Town", and I'm not aware that it was based on anything other than "Evil in Clear River", which aired earlier that year. "Evil" was, however based on the Keegstra case which relied on a quirk of Canadian law regarding hate speech, not Holocaust denial. And he most certainly did *not* have the support of the community.
.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Importantly, anyone fired under such circumstances were high school teachers and not college professors. The teaching of children is a different matter than the teaching of adults.

By the time they reach college it's too late. The children have already been brainwashed by the Wiesels, the Simons, the Zisblatts, and the Spielbergs. The children have already become Holocaust chimps under the control of the Holocaust chimp masters.