Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Corsair 115]

And your evasive response means that you cannot name one credible Jewish witness to the holohoax, and follow that up with a detailed examination of his/her testimony.

And you continue to evade providing even one credible witness to this vast global conspiracy whereby all media is controlled by Jews.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Who cares?

Classic Noam. What difference does it make?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I did not ask to see a list of 200 pathological liars, I asked to see the name of one credible Jewish witness to the holohoax. Name him/her. Let's examine the lies of any witness you want to pick in detail. We know Yad Vashem has a list of 50,000 pathological liars, we don't need your list of 200. Just name ONE.

MG1962

What criteria do we need to consider when producing this witness. You have already dismissed 50,000 witnesses without knowing their story, without explanation, so what point are you really trying to make?

LemmyCaution

I gave you 3 names. All were witnesses to aspects of the genocide. Oscar Strawczynski was on Nick's list and in my post as well. You have now called him a liar and a pathological liar. I asked you to detail Strawczynski's lies and to prove he lied. Now you need to show that his lying was pathological. Please answer my questions about Strawczynski and the other 2 witnesses I named instead of claiming you weren't given the right reply to your statement and dodging having to make out any sort of case to support your rather broad claim.

Chaos

There´s the problem: You asked for a name, Nick gave you several, you dismiss them out of hand because, since their testimony would demolish your denier fantasies, they cannot possibly be reliable witnesses.

Where is your evidence that these people, other than the last six Nick listed, are pathological liars? I mean, other than the fact that you do not want their statements to be true?

Nick Terry

Nobody cares

what you asked, Saggy. Your request for 'one' witness means you score 0.5% on the Rev-O-Meter.

More classic Noam dismissal from Nick.


No one gave ONE. All danced around with double talk.

 

[Saggy]

The bottom line with Saggy is that he won't even make a half-hearted effort to debate the evidence. Instead, he hand-waves and dismisses no fewer than two hundred witnesses in one fell swoop.

Any lurker can see he's lost the argument.

Debating such a person is a big fat waste of time.

There is no evidence of the holocaust as it did not happen. There is one credible witness because the Zionists did not bother to make their lies plausible.

There is plenty of evidence of the holohoax which I will gladly provide. What constitutes evidence of a hoax? Ans: blatant lies. Here is a good example from Nobel Prize Winner and the first director of the USHMM holohoax museum Elie Wiesel ....

"Babies were thrown into the air and the machine gunners used them as targets. This was in the forest of Galicia, near Kolomaye"

You see, you don't have to know anything about the history of WW II to know that Wiesel is a pathological liar as the event he describes is implausible, uncorroborated, and what's more physically impossible. This degenerate now sponsors a Zionist ethics 'humanitarian award', the Zionists revel in absurdity.

The Zionists do not care if their lies are obvious. Wiesel's book is recommended reading in many schools. For crying out loud the guy was at Auschwitz and doesn't mention gas chambers, yet the Zionists don't care that his account directly contradicts the hoax. They have the liberty to say anything at all, and argue it vociferously as proof of the hoax.

Just as Nick Terry argues that a report that specifically states that no mass graves were found at Treblinka is evidence of mass graves at Treblinka. Reality is what the Zionists want it to be, and facts to the contrary are dismissed as anti-semitism.

 

[uke2se]

There is no evidence of the holocaust as it did not happen.

Lie. There are mountains of evidence for the holocaust as has been show in this thread - as well as multiple published works since the end of the war. The holocaust is among the most evidenced events in human history.

There is one credible witness because the Zionists did not bother to make their lies plausible.

I think Saggy made an error here in his frantic typing, and that he actually meant "no credible witnesses", which is yet another lie. If he actually is saying that there is one credible witness, that too is a lie, as Nick Terry has shown 200, which is only the very small tip of the proverbial iceberg.

There is plenty of evidence of the holohoax which I will gladly provide.

Lie. There is no evidence for any hoax, nor has Saggy bothered to provide any such evidence in his long participation in this thread.

What constitutes evidence of a hoax? Ans: blatant lies.

Like religion, Saggy's conspiracy theory is self-sustained. Anything that speaks for the conspiracy is evidence of the conspiracy. Everything that speaks against the conspiracy is evidence for the conspiracy. It's basically the definition of lunacy.

Here is a good example from Nobel Prize Winner and the first director of the USHMM holohoax museum Elie Wiesel ....

"Babies were thrown into the air and the machine gunners used them as targets. This was in the forest of Galicia, near Kolomaye"

You see, you don't have to know anything about the history of WW II to know that Wiesel is a pathological liar as the event he describes is implausible, uncorroborated, and what's more physically impossible. This degenerate now sponsors a Zionist ethics

On Nick Terry's scale, Saggy managed to reach a whopping 0.5%, mentioning one name and asserting that he lied while disregarding the credible testimony of hundreds of other named, and tens of thousands of other unnamed witnesses.

The Zionists do not care if their lies are obviously absurd.

For those reading this thread who are not familliar with Saggy's terminology, "Zionist" means "Jew". In Saggy's fantasy land, all Jews are equal, and all Jews are equally bad.

Wiesel's book is recommended reading in many schools. For crying out loud the guy was at Auschwitz and doesn't mention gas chambers, yet the Zionists don't care that his account directly contradicts the hoax.

As has been pointed out to Saggy before, there is no contradiction here. Saggy has basically stopped trying to argue anything in this thread, reserving his time to post a fact-deprived insane rant every other page or so.

They have the liberty to say anything at all, and argue it vociferously as proof of the hoax.

Saggy, being a neo-Nazi, doesn't like freedom of speech, unless it applies to himself.

Just as Nick Terry argues that a report that specifically states that no mass graves were found at Treblinka is evidence of mass graves at Treblinka.

Saggy is lying again. Nick Terry has said no such thing. Saggy failed miserably to argue that no mass graves had been found in a thread where multiple mass graves were identified to him. His response? He simply asserted his initial premiss again. That's how he works.

Reality is what the Zionists want it to be, and facts to the contrary are dismissed as anti-semitism.

Saggy is probably the most vocal antisemite in these forums. His antisemtism is plain for every rational person to see, but Saggy sees accusations of antisemitism as proof of his insane fantasies. It isn't rational, but holocaust denial isn't rational to begin with.

 

[MaxMurx]

As I said some time ago I don't want to discuss the Holocaust but I insist that documents are neither fabricated nor falsified. With the amount of evidence being available nobody should object removing the falsifications.

One question:What would you think of somebody arriving in a police station accusing someone to be leader of a gang having committed a number of severe crimes. Being asked for evidence the person shows a self written list of the crimes which also contains the names of the gang members. Being asked about the origin of the list the accuser says to have shot the alleged gang leader and during the one died from his wounds he confessed all his crimes and named his accomplices, the paper is the protocol . No further witness were present, only the gang leader who is dead now and the one who shot him, who is now presenting the paper.

That is how Franz Blaha received the confessions of Franz Ziereis, the Mauthausen commander, after Ziereis was shot by him. The event is described by Blaha himself. Franz Blaha is on your witness list. Blaha was also witness in the Dachau trials and witnessed the use of gas chambers.

 

[uke2se]

As I said some time ago I don't want to discuss the Holocaust but I insist that documents are neither fabricated nor falsified. With the amount of evidence being available nobody should object removing the falsifications.

One question:What would you think of somebody arriving in a police station accusing someone to be leader of a gang having committed a number of severe crimes. Being asked for evidence the person shows a self written list of the crimes which also contains the names of the gang members. Being asked about the origin of the list the accuser says to have shot the alleged gang leader and during the one died from his wounds he confessed all his crimes and named his accomplices, the paper is the protocol . No further witness were present, only the gang leader who is dead now and the one who shot him, who is now presenting the paper.

That is how Franz Blaha received the confessions of Franz Ziereis, the Mauthausen commander, after Ziereis was shot by him. The event is described by Blaha himself. Franz Blaha is on your witness list. Blaha was also witness in the Dachau trials and witnessed the use of gas chambers.

I don't accept your account of how this event transpired.

 

[Nick Terry]

That is how Franz Blaha received the confessions of Franz Ziereis, the Mauthausen commander, after Ziereis was shot by him. The event is described by Blaha himself. Franz Blaha is on your witness list. Blaha was also witness in the Dachau trials and witnessed the use of gas chambers.

Blaha was at Dachau, not Mauthausen. Fail.

Do you think Ziereis was the only SS man serving at Mauthausen who gave testimony about the camp after the war? Well, do ya?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

For how many posts in this very thread did I try to get deniers to spell out the history of the hoaxing?

I agree, it is more interesting when a holocaust denier actually tries to set out their theory in detail and match it to facts. I think that the current batch of Internet holocaust deniers have simply learned not to do this. LGR is a bit different LGR simply fabricates and throws stuff at the wall to see what sticks in a whole range of topics.

I have one remaining holocaust denier at the Skeptic Society. He makes up entire stories from scratch. I have asked him to re-locate here but he won't work with other holocaust deniers.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No one gave ONE. All danced around with double talk.

I gave 3 specific names and Saggy writes about Wiesel instead of explaining how these 3 named witnesses, in his view, lied. Not only is such a Wiesel gambit bereft, it's tired.

How do you expect to convince your readers of anything when you won't even directly answer responses to the claims you guys make? Or are you just chanting a mantra to make yourselves feel good?

 

[Corsair 115]

There is no evidence of the holocaust as it did not happen. There is one credible witness because the Zionists did not bother to make their lies plausible.

Once again: Where is your credible evidence that Jews control all media worldwide?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I gave 3 specific names and Saggy writes about Wiesel instead of explaining how these 3 named witnesses, in his view, lied. Not only is such a Wiesel gambit bereft, it's tired.

How do you expect to convince your readers of anything when you won't even directly answer responses to the claims you guys make? Or are you just chanting a mantra to make yourselves feel good?

Give me the three names.

How do you explain the fact that the two of the most famous names of the Holocaust, Simon Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel, were both pathological liars?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Give me the three names.

How do you explain the fact that the two of the most famous names of the Holocaust, Simon Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel, were both pathological liars?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7571462&postcount=5853

(We've already been round and round on Wiesel, whose works are rarely even cited by historians. I haven't read anything by Wiesel, except for a few op-eds in the Boston Globe years ago IIRC - which I didn't like at all - nor by Wiesenthal, so I am not someone who can confirm that either is a pathological liar, or not. I will say that Saggy's attempt to present Wiesel as a liar -- "the event he describes is implausible, uncorroborated, and what's more physically impossible" -- isn't persuasive to someone who isn't familiar with Wiesel's writing. Nor is his broad-brushed smear of "Zionists." And, finally, his repetition that "For crying out loud the guy was at Auschwitz and doesn't mention gas chambers" -- a canard dealt with many times -- makes me think that Saggy is either ignorant of the camp complex, how it worked, and Wiesel's time there or trying to pull one over on someone who is ignorant.)

 

[TSR]

Give me the three names.

.
You are incapable of making use of the search function, or backing up a couple of pages? Here, I was assuming that you *had* those opposable thumb thingys...

But okay.
.

How do you explain the fact that the two of the most famous names of the Holocaust, Simon Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel, were both pathological liars?

.
Easy. It's not a fact, it's another knowing untruth made up by your non-primate buddies in denial, one which you mindlessly parrot here. To take a recent example, your 'non-liar' comrade has stated that:

Babies cannot be thrown in the air,
or the guards in the camps did not have machine guns,
or they had no ammo,
or not all of the guns and ammo were in Nazi hands

as zir example of those 'pathological lies' because one of these is, on the face of it, impossible to have been the case.

Which was it? Maybe you'll find the answer on THHP, against which you have yet to even attempt to support your slur.

Those are both knowing untruths on your and Saggs' parts -- are you really sure you want to continue to whine about what you see as other people's lies?
.

 

[kmortis]

Keep it civil and on topic

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Clayton Moore]

Since the only historian I know of who's "used" Zisblatt is Dr Neander, and he rejected her account, I am not sure what Zisblatt is representative of. But still, let's discuss some actual Jewish witnesses.

- I am curious about the lies told by Oscar Strawczynski - and even a comparison of his account of his time in Treblinka to that of Wiernik. Can you be so kind as to share with us the lies of Strawczynski and proof of his lying?

- I wonder what lies were told by Yudis Trojak and Pesye Schloss about what they went through. Can you be so kind as to share with us the lies of Trojak and Schloss and proof of their lying?

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/survivor/strawczynski .html

What the hell?

 

[Robrob]

I did not ask to see a list of 200 pathological liars, I asked to see the name of one credible Jewish witness to the holohoax. Name him/her. Let's examine the lies of any witness you want to pick in detail. We know Yad Vashem has a list of 50,000 pathological liars, we don't need your list of 200. Just name ONE.

Must be nice when you can simply label 50,000 eye witnesses as "liars" and move on.

"Babies were thrown into the air and the machine gunners used them as targets. This was in the forest of Galicia, near Kolomaye"

You see, you don't have to know anything about the history of WW II to know that Wiesel is a pathological liar as the event he describes is implausible, uncorroborated, and what's more physically impossible.

Throwing babies in the air, shooting at them with machine guns or both?

For crying out loud the guy was at Auschwitz and doesn't mention gas chambers, yet the Zionists don't care that his account directly contradicts the hoax. They have the liberty to say anything at all, and argue it vociferously as proof of the hoax.

And if he had mentioned gas chambers, you'd argue against that as well.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Blaha was at Dachau, not Mauthausen. Fail.

Do you think Ziereis was the only SS man serving at Mauthausen who gave testimony about the camp after the war? Well, do ya?

It was Hans Marsalek. However, whereas the "obvious liar" Blaha (so described by Leo Alexander Head of the Medical Trial prosecution team) faded back into private life, the "proven perjurer" went on to head the Mauthausen memorial and archives for many decades.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It was Hans Marsalek. However, whereas the "obvious liar" Blaha (so described by Leo Alexander Head of the Medical Trial prosecution team) faded back into private life, the "proven perjurer" went on to head the Mauthausen memorial and archives for many decades.

That's a definite neener neener.

 

[Dogzilla]

Blaha was at Dachau, not Mauthausen. Fail.

Do you think Ziereis was the only SS man serving at Mauthausen who gave testimony about the camp after the war? Well, do ya?

Did Ziereis actually give testimony? From the Affidavit of Hans Marsalek on the Nizkor hate site, it sounds like Ziereis was shot while trying to escape and gave a statement to Marsalek in the form of a dying declaration before actually dying. A dying declaration can be accepted as evidence under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule but it's not really Ziereis who gave the testimony. It's Marsalek testifying to what Ziereis said.

Is there another, earlier, statement from Ziereis himself? If Ziereis testimony is in the form of a dying declaration, was this testimony corroborated by the other people who interrogated him as he was dying besides Marsalek? And why did Marsalek wait eleven months after taking Ziereis' dying declaration to write it down?