• 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.
Saggy said:
There are no canonical testimonies for the gas chambers. According to Yehuda Bauer, research director at Yad Vashem, there is only one Jewish eyewitness to the gassings who lived to tell about it, his name is Filip Meuller, and his 'testimony' is beyond absurd. He IS the canonical witness, and he is an obvious pathological liar. You only have to read the TITLE of his book, 'Eyewitness Auschwitz, Three Years in a Gas Chamber Without a Scratch'. But, don't stop there, get the book. You will immediately know that the holocaust is a gigantic hoax based on absolutely nothing but degenerate obvious lies.

.
Click to expand...

Speaking of such things why did you lie about the name of the book

http://www.amazon.com/Eyewitness-Auschwitz-Three-Years-Chambers/dp/1566632714
 
Saggy said:
There are no canonical testimonies for the gas chambers.
Click to expand...


There are no canonical testimonies for the global Jewish control of media.


Saggy said:
Because there is not a single credible Jewish witness, they are all obvious pathological liars, like Wiesel, Wiernik, Bomba, Meuller, Rosenberg, Zisblatt, et. al.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for YOUR list of credible witnesses to this Jewish control of all media you claim exists earlier in this thread.
 
Kevin.Silbstedt said:
You know, you could at least use different words each time you use this appeal to ridicule crap, which is retarded anyway. Oh, and of course no one will see the ad hominem argument you tried with that "child molester thing". Even a child molester can be a witness and tell the truth. Yep, you holocaust deniers just define the term "pathetic".



This demonstrates perfectly, why questions or the lack of an explanation is not evidence. I don't know the source you use and I only know the testimony of Mueller from Lanzmanns "Shoah" (yeah, another evil zionist), but I guess you talk about the gassing of the Theresienstadt sub camp, where of course everyone knew, that they were going to be gassed (even if they denied it, til they finally went to the crematoria), because they were told so by other members of the camp (Vrba comes to my mind).

They were told so, because they should start an uprising with the help of the Sonderkommando, because of their (in comparison) healthy condition and otherwise sure death in their near future. But they failed to do so.



How about, because he wanted to die and not because he had to, like the girls? At that time, he was part of the Sonderkommando and it was his choice to die with them. He could just leave the room, the girls couldn't.



Because she's a filthy jew or because it meant something to her and she hid it. Nah, it's just because she's a jew. :rolleyes:



Because it was the only chance to deliver it, and if she wouldn't have given it to Mueller, it would have fallen in the hands of nazis right after the gassing? To easy?



Still better, than in the hands of the nazis, without any positive results.



It doesn't even come close to the insanely idiotic **** you are puking into this forum. Here's a tip: If you cannot explain or understand the context of something, it just means that you can't explain or understand it, period!

You are doing the exact same crap as creationists: "What about this bacteria, how could it have evolved through evolution? I don't know, so that must mean evolution is a hoax!" You can prove any kind of BS with this argument from ignorance/incredulity garbage. And especially when it comes to the holocaust you know nothing.

Sometimes I really wish such a reasoning would work, because right now I cannot understand or explain how someone could believe such a reasoning to be rational. What a retarded load of crap.
Click to expand...


So you believe "the beauty of Yana's death" story is the literal truth?
 
BURNED ALIVE; was there a holocaust?

I am not really surprised that most people here will be fascinated to learn that some other people are bored by the trivial question of a possible holocaust at Birkenau. I disagree with Saggy that there are no canonical testimonies for gas chambers. A canon is a body of testimonies accepted by the scholarly authorities as authentic. There may even be 200, for all I know, although they are not considered of equal importance. Filipe Mueller is very high on the list, but he is only one of many. He is our best authority for burnings alive. If one could create a subsection of this forum devoted to Mueller, I think that would be a good idea.

I did not take Lemmy Cautions post to be a reply to me. These things should not be taken as personalised duels. I was talking about Burning Alive. I fastened on his post because it began with that very subject. He conjectured , correctly I think, that such burnings were not physically impossible. He shifted to the 1964 trial, but without mentioning the testimony relevant to my uninteresting topic.

(I am quite sure that LemmyCaution is not uncritical of the 1964 trial. What most of us know of the trial comes from the accounts of Naumann and Langbein and the commentaries of Wittmann and Pendas. Most bien pensants follow them in being not uncritical of this trial. The all think it was too too fair, too lenient, too legalistic, and it thereby failed in its purpose of delivering a salutary history lesson to the German people. I take it for granted that the local chorus here will be similarly not uncritical. It would mischaracterise my position if anyone thinks I too was “not uncritical” in that sense.)
 
Dogzilla said:
So you believe "the beauty of Yana's death" story is the literal truth?
Click to expand...

Oh, a stupid question, what a surprise. :rolleyes: Of course I believe, that this story happend, since Mueller is a valid eyewitness and I have no evidence, that contradicts his story. On the contrary, the story of Vrba about the failure to produce an uprising, fits the story of Mueller.

What you are doing, is just denying, without a shred of evidence of course, but that's nothing new. Oh, and again just mocking the story, doesn't make it false, it just lets you look like a pathetic moron.
 
Gwynpaine said:
I disagree with Saggy that there are no canonical testimonies for gas chambers. A canon is a body of testimonies accepted by the scholarly authorities as authentic. There may even be 200, for all I know, although they are not considered of equal importance.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see them. The fact is they don't exist. All the Jews have is a lot of prima facie phantasmagoria like that of Wiesel, Meuller, Wiernik, Bomba, Rosenberg, et. al. There is not ONE Jewish witness that is not an obvious pathological liar.

What they depend on is that the 'testimonies' that they do have will never be critically examined.

We have seen that the USHMM and Yad Vashem and distinguished University professors like Michael Berenbaum are willing to vet complete idiocy like that of Irene Zisblatt, and even give it an Academy award. They simply have no standards at all, they will say absolutely anything and confidently expect the goyim to lap it up.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
Your'e funny. I liked the website's banner. "Zionist Leon Trotsky and the Zionist U.S.S.R.". So the U.S.S.R, that doesn't exist anymore, controls western media? Hmmmm..... that's more looney then usual, even for holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...

Not to mention (which I think you were referring to) the obvious problem of referring to the USSR and Trotsky in particular as "Zionist."
 
Saggy said:
Well, let's see them. The fact is they don't exist. All the Jews have is a lot of prima facie phantasmagoria like that of Wiesel, Meuller, Wiernik, Bomba, Rosenberg, et. al. There is not ONE Jewish witness that is not an obvious pathological liar.

What they depend on is that the 'testimonies' that they do have will never be critically examined.

We have seen that the USHMM and Yad Vashem and distinguished University professors like Michael Berenbaum are willing to vet complete idiocy like that of Irene Zisblatt, and even give it an Academy award. They simply have no standards at all, they will say absolutely anything and confidently expect the goyim to lap it up.
Click to expand...

I notice you are still to apologise for openly lying about the name of that book.........pot meet kettle
 
Saggy said:
All the Jews have is a lot of prima facie phantasmagoria like that of Wiesel, Meuller, Wiernik, Bomba, Rosenberg, et. al.
Click to expand...


All Saggy has for his worldwide Jewish conspiracy controlling all media everywhere is his own insistence it exists.


Saggy said:
What they depend on is that the 'testimonies' that they do have will never be critically examined.
Click to expand...


Saggy doesn't even have that much to demonstrate his worldwide Jewish conspiracy which controls all media everywhere. He hasn't even provided one testimony from a credible witness speaking of it.


Saggy said:
They simply have no standards at all, they will say absolutely anything and confidently expect the goyim to lap it up.
Click to expand...


Saggy simply has no standards at all when it comes to his worldwide Jewish conspiracy controlling all media everywhere. He says absolutely anything and confidently expects rational people to lap it up.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Saggy simply has no standards at all when it comes to his worldwide Jewish conspiracy controlling all media everywhere. He says absolutely anything and confidently expects rational people to lap it up.
Click to expand...

Yes he does enjoy invoking the null argument. The proof of the Jewish conspiracy is covered up by the media. The reason we can't prove this media coverup is because the Jewish conspiracy is stopping it.

Very convienient
 
Gwynpaine said:
I am not really surprised that most people here will be fascinated to learn that some other people are bored by the trivial question of a possible holocaust at Birkenau. I disagree with Saggy that there are no canonical testimonies for gas chambers. A canon is a body of testimonies accepted by the scholarly authorities as authentic. There may even be 200, for all I know, although they are not considered of equal importance. Filipe Mueller is very high on the list, but he is only one of many. He is our best authority for burnings alive. If one could create a subsection of this forum devoted to Mueller, I think that would be a good idea.

I did not take Lemmy Cautions post to be a reply to me. These things should not be taken as personalised duels. I was talking about Burning Alive. I fastened on his post because it began with that very subject. He conjectured , correctly I think, that such burnings were not physically impossible. He shifted to the 1964 trial, but without mentioning the testimony relevant to my uninteresting topic.

(I am quite sure that LemmyCaution is not uncritical of the 1964 trial. What most of us know of the trial comes from the accounts of Naumann and Langbein and the commentaries of Wittmann and Pendas. Most bien pensants follow them in being not uncritical of this trial. The all think it was too too fair, too lenient, too legalistic, and it thereby failed in its purpose of delivering a salutary history lesson to the German people. I take it for granted that the local chorus here will be similarly not uncritical. It would mischaracterise my position if anyone thinks I too was “not uncritical” in that sense.)
Click to expand...
But I wasn't focused on what you are focused on, which is why I didn't address you.

Clearly, as I stated, I was focused on the terms and conditions of incarceration, regularized mass murder, and both institutional and individual atrocities in general--the practice of terrorizing the prisoners. And, clearly, my post discussed issues of witness testimony and what one trial shows about both witness testimony and atrocities.

You can take issue with my post for being an answer to something I wasn't trying to answer, but that just demonstrates weirdness and/or self-absorption.

I truly don't understand what you are trying to say. For all your words, you aren't being very clear. So be it. My point, I think, was clear and it was not a sudden shift away from burning people alive in pits: I am arguing against Saggy and his chums that the atrocities they think to be impossible are not impossible, that there is strong evidence for a wide variety of atrocities in the camps, that their handful of "cases" (Wiernik, Wiesel) are not as important as they think, as no single data point or person is, and some (not all) of the evidence for "impossible" atrocities is given by, in the case of the one trial I cited, 200+ witnesses, both victims and perpetrators.

Disclaimer: I view trials as judgments of individuals, not educational forums, so I wouldn't subscribe to your attribution, to some unnamed group of people here, that a chain of failures in the trial gave the result that it "thereby failed in its purpose of delivering a salutary history lesson to the German people." That's not my view, no matter what you think.
 
Last edited:
MG1962 said:
Yes he does enjoy invoking the null argument.
Click to expand...


Whenever Saggy starts bleating about how there is no evidence for the Holocaust I am going to take his words and throw them right back at him. Nothing illustrates more clearly the massive double standard and utter intellectual bankruptcy of his arguments.

And, frankly, I take a certain delight in doing so. (He makes it all too easy most times.)
 
'Eyewitness Auschwitz, Three Years in a Gas Chamber Without a Scratch'
Click to expand...
You are either a really bad liar or you mistook Sonderkommando Muller for a concentration camp prisoner.

Matthew Ellard said:
Your'e funny. I liked the website's banner. "Zionist Leon Trotsky and the Zionist U.S.S.R.". So the U.S.S.R, that doesn't exist anymore, controls western media? Hmmmm..... that's more looney then usual, even for holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...
The "Zionist" USSR that persecuted its own Jewish citizens? Yeah, that makes sense...
 
What is keeping Saggy from focusing on Strawczynski or one of Nick's 200 witnesses and
proceed[ing] to demolish his/her lies?
Click to expand...
After he made such brave noises about lies and lack of credibility, Saggy seems to have chosen the silent treatment for his expose. Odd.
 
LemmyCaution said:
What is keeping Saggy from focusing on Strawczynski or one of Nick's 200 witnesses and After he made such brave noises about lies and lack of credibility, Saggy seems to have chosen the silent treatment for his expose. Odd.
Click to expand...

Your constant yammer that nothing has been presented reminds me of John Cleese's side of the MP argument skit.

That's how everything in this thread is argued.

Not unlike the following.

The claim of the Jews that the Protocols are forgeries is in itself an admission of their genuineness, for they NEVER ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE FACTS corresponding to the THREATS which the Protocols contain, and, indeed, the correspondence between prophecy and fulfillment is too glaring to be set aside or obscured. This the Jews well know and therefore evade.
Click to expand...

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/protocolsofsion.shtml
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom