Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Clayton Moore]

Saggy, I'd like to welcome you back to the fold of rational folk!

Based on your last post you agree that

a. There were gas chambers and crematoria at some of the camps;
b. That the Einsatzgruppen did commit acts of murder;
c. That acts of murder were done at camps without crematoria; and
d. That the evidence was covered up.

You've come a long way.

10,000 a day
416 an hour had to be gassed and cremated or burned or buried 24/7.

Didn't happen.

 

[Border Reiver]

And the basis of your belief for that statement is?

 

[Dogzilla]

It's worth it for me to risk a yellow card a suspension or a ban to say this to you:

You are the biggest f u c k i n g idiot I've ever encountered. That you would continue to spew this rot over and over again after you've been demonstrably proved an idiot would be sad if it weren't funny.

If I were you, I consider prefrontal lobotomy, you f u c k i n g chimp.

Is that all it takes to circumvent the auto-censor?

 

[Border Reiver]

And the basis of your belief for that statement is?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Is that all it takes to circumvent the auto-censor?

Not even a suspension for viciously attacking a poster and circumventing the forum's software censor.

 

[Wroclaw]

Yeah, I'm terrible.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Yeah, I'm terrible.

Yup. You should have been banned.

 

[MG1962]

Yup. You should have been banned.

Have you reported it?

Such matters are not an automatic process - You actually have to do something

 

[Clayton Moore]

Have you reported it?

Such matters are not an automatic process - You actually have to do something

Yes.

 

[MG1962]

Yes.

Assuming its been a few days I would first PM a mod and check if the infraction has been looked at. If it has, and you are unhappy with the result, open a new thread in forum management ask for clarification

 

[Dogzilla]

None of the historians you quoted to support your point said that was what happened. They said that's what the Nazis were trying to make happen. Notice the difference.



They were murdered. The evidence is overwhelming. Since you don't think they were murdered, you answer the same question: where did they go?

Dead people don't disappear. Murdered people don't disappear. If we were told that the Nazis murdered 1,500,000 Jews in random unknown locations scattered all over Poland and incinerated the bodies on the spot, it would be difficult to prove or disprove. It could be done but it would take alot of work. But that isn't what we're told happened. We're told that 1,500,000 Jews were murdered in one of three known, undisputed, very very small locations and most of them were buried in the ground. Then they were dug up and incinerated in the same spot. Evidence at those three sites today might indicate that there are or were mass graves. The evidence doesn't come anywhere close to supporting the notion of mass graves that contained hundreds of thousands of people. Evidence of a mass grave that held twenty thousand bodies at one time wouldn't be enough to support the AR camps history. We don't even have that.

So where did those people go?

 

[Cyrix686]

I hope he's read Shmuel Spector's PDF available at the Rodoh forum. He's got further to go than that though. It's quite old now (1990), isn't it? I also hope that Saggs is at least familiar with the picture of the pyre in the Dresden Altmarket that is so reminiscent of AR corpse disposal. And finally I hope that he has learned something from the valuable information posted and which deals with animal carcass disposal during the FMD outbreak in the UK in 2001.

 

[Cyrix686]

Of course murdered people disappear. We know where they went. Into the ground, then into the air. We know it was possible because after the War was over, a large amount of Jews were missing. And a large amount of corroborative evidence was found. Not just Blobel's testimony. Why doesn't it come close to being possible that people were gassed and burned at the Reinhardt camps, Dogzilla? Because you say so? You can't just stomp your feet. Or is it because a Revisionists tried to make a barbecue of his wife's pork chops in his back yard to demonstrate against cremation?

 

[uke2se]

Of course the Jews murdered in the holohoax vanished without a trace.

I don't know what happened to the Jews in the holohoax, as that never happened. In the holocaust, the Jews were murdered but the Nazis failed to erase all traces. That's why we know it happened.

 

[uke2se]

Dead people don't disappear. Murdered people don't disappear.

And they didn't. They are in the mass graves you no doubt deny exist.

If we were told that the Nazis murdered 1,500,000 Jews in random unknown locations scattered all over Poland and incinerated the bodies on the spot, it would be difficult to prove or disprove.

But it isn't, because we have found many of the massgraves.

It could be done but it would take alot of work. But that isn't what we're told happened. We're told that 1,500,000 Jews were murdered in one of three known, undisputed, very very small locations and most of them were buried in the ground.

"Very small" is a couple of achres at least.

Then they were dug up and incinerated in the same spot. Evidence at those three sites today might indicate that there are or were mass graves.

And it does.

The evidence doesn't come anywhere close to supporting the notion of mass graves that contained hundreds of thousands of people.

Yes, it does.

Evidence of a mass grave that held twenty thousand bodies at one time wouldn't be enough to support the AR camps history. We don't even have that.

Yes, we do.

So where did those people go?

They were murdered and dumped in mass graves, many of them incinerated, but not all of them. The graves are still there. Read a book once in a while.

 

[Nick Terry]

I brought up a quote from a website that used an example of the Hitler order to illustrate how absence of proof isn't proof of absence. The example isn't what we're talking about.

Besides missing the point, you tried a sleight of hand to talk about the lack of evidence for a Hitler order or the lack of the lack of evidence for a Hitler order. Lipstadt's minions weren't talking about the lack of evidence. They said lack of proof. Since you previously acknowledged that evidence and proof aren't the same thing you know perfectly well what you tried but failed to do.

If you believe there's plenty of proof of a Hitler order, take it up with the non-historian and her non-historian web content provider. They're the ones who said there is an absence of proof for a Hitler order but that that isn't proof of the absence of the Hitler order.

There doesn't seem to be very much left of your two specious claims that

1) the Holocaust is held to a different standard of evidence to other events

and

2) that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' somehow plays a role in this

Those were your claims, right? So no "sleight of hand" in continuing to address them. Since you've evidently been reduced to weaseling out of what you previously wrote and are left with little more than general poo-flinging, unless you have anything further to add on the subjects of (1) and (2) we can conclude this by saying that you were, as usual, wrong.

A major plank? Who said it was a major plank?

You're right, I forgot, you never actually say anything coherent.

Well why didn't you say that? All you said was that you knew that Lipstadt didn't write them.

Because it's funnier to watch you speculate wildly and make an idiot of yourself.

No. Just an unwillingness to spend money on a book and read it just because you told me to.

Ever heard of libraries?

If your recommended reading is valuable to our discussion then it's incumbent upon you to tell us why.

David Hackett Fischer's Historians' Fallacies is a classic philosophy of history text. It's also very readable. If you were really interested in the problems you raise in this thread then you should be trying to educate yourself using such books, as they might actually answer some of your questions and show you where you are going wrong.

I've already provided twice as many examples of absence of evidence/proof isn't evidence/proof of absence being endorsed by people who write about the holocaust (two people who have no doubt exerted more influence over how we think about the holocaust than you have despite your status as historian of the holocaust and their status as a historian of science and a whatever it is that Lipstadt studied).

Yeah, me and Raul Hilberg and Christian Gerlach and Alina Skibinska and Robert Kuwalek and Ben Kiernan and Hannah Arendt and all the other people I mentioned in a previous post, sure, we collectively have had less influence than Michael Shermer and the webmaster at hdot.org.

It is clearly going to be an excruciatingly pointless waste of time watching you dredge up another tenuous example, so the end result is: two peripheral voices mentioning 'absence of blah', a zillion others not mentioning it, still no double standard proven, Dogzilla once again proven to be a mass-debater who makes stuff up then cannot justify it, even after dozens of posts.

 

[Nick Terry]

Feel free to quantify this for us. You know, prove that the number of new titles is a testament to the failure of revision and not, for example, that but for the success of the revisionists, there would have been twice as many new books published or that the number of college courses would have been doubled if it weren't for the pressure brought on the universities by the revisionists.

(BTW, I know that isn't the case. But I'd still like to see you offer up something to substantiate your unsubstantiated pronouncements.)

I don't need to offer anything up. The observations are self-evident. If you can link to a single news story where revisionist activism resulted in the cancellation of so much as one class on the Holocaust or a publisher turning down one book written from a mainstream perspective, then my claims would be falsified. I am quite confident you will fail to produce any such story.

A rather telling sign of what?

of the progression of research and the ability of historians to synthesise their findings in a variety of forms.

Like they say, if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, inundate them with your b......t.

and you have any evidence that any of the books listed are ********, other than your wishful thinking? Of course you don't. You haven't read any of them, but already you know that they're wrong, because! you! say! so!.

I wonder how many of those new titles will sell as many copies as Night?

What an utterly stupid thing to say. Since when do academic books sell millions of copies? They don't. That doesn't stop them being the first port of call for researchers and teachers aiming to study a subject.

I understand, really I do, that you want the world to be dumbed down to your moronic level, but this is a skeptics' forum and we don't play it like that.

I'm going off to watch The Walking Dead. I will name the first zombie to be blasted 'Dogzilla', in your honour.

 

[Wroclaw]

Dead people don't disappear. Murdered people don't disappear.

Really? What about this guy?

Or do you think he's alive somewhere?

 

[Wroclaw]

These two children have been missing for thirty-two years. A very famous case here in the Philadelphia area. Clayton can tell you all about it:

Their mother (played by Stockard Channing in the movie) was murdered. It has always been assumed that the children were also. Their bodies have never been located.

 

[Wroclaw]

Of course, this guy is presumed dead as well:

I suppose it's possible he's alive. It's just not likely.

Same birthday as the first guy, btw. As in same date and same year.

Coincidence?