Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[TSR]

Note that *you* did not ask any questions. Uke2se did.

.
Which is relevant ... why?
.

I'm not talking to you.

.
All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
.

If you want to enter the discussion you will answer my questions.

.
Or not, since I have done the former and not the latter -- at least until you start answering them yourself.
.

I have seen stories that were published on Christian or extremist websites referring to the places where abortion clinics dump their trash as "mass graves." I want to limit the definition of a "mass grave" to include only full term humans.

.
And since we're discussing the Holocaust and no one uses such a definition for *those* graves, why even bring it up?
.

Yes it is relevant because size matters.

.
So stop faffing around and tell us what sizes you refer to as impossible and why.
.

Conducting a quick internet search for the largest mass graves ever found will give you some interesting results as far as the number of bodies. But they are only of limited use because they don't provide a way to calculate cubic dimensions.

.
Neither do you.
.

But still, documented mass graves existing outside of the holocaust are different in size compared to those existing inside the holocaust.

.
As a general rule? Feel free to more than assert it is so.
.

If you believe this is not the case, please do some research and find what you believe is the largest non-holocaust mass grave. The scale of the difference might be instructive.

.
It's not my claim, it's yours.

So *you* do the research, supply your sources, document your calculations and stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
.

And again, *you* will answer questions, not ask.

.
And again, NOT.
.

No, I'm going to predict that nobody, especially not you, will agree to some basic details about the camps in question.

.
Of course, your track record of prediction is abysmal, including this case. Your 'prediction' is also predicated on you actually *offering* such details, and the outlook on that is not good, given your history and the fact that you have *yet* to do so in this case.
.

You will not agree who is a reliable a source and will demand that I defend my choice of Arad.

.
Wrong in the first case, and what do you expect us to do in the second? Just take your word that Arad agrees with you? You have a history of posting lies on that topic, so we're not.
.

I'm not going to waste my time doing that.

.
Or anything at all which would support your whining claims.
.

As I've said, I know that we both get our information about the AR camps from sources we believe are reliable.

.
But see, *I* don't just copy and paste from anonymous websites to "cut corners" and then try to defend the hack job of editing done by my sources.

Who was it that did that, again?
.

If you believe my source isn't reliable, it's because you rely on a different source that you believe is better.

.
You have yet to actually offer a source who agrees with your crap about "impossibility".
.

So simply tell me who that is and we can go from there.

.
I know of no one who does agree, so you'll have to do your own work.
.

Please be aware that if you won't agree with me that I can use Arad as a source, and you won't tell me who I can, you'll be admitting that 1) you don't know if Arad is reliable because you haven't read anything about the AR camps and shouldn't be participating in this discussion or 2) there simply are no reliable sources for accurate information about the most thoroughly documented crime in history. Or both.

.
Of course, this is all based on your assumption that Arad is unacceptable.

What, exactly, does Arad have to say about this "impossibility" you made up?
.

 

[TSR]

Nobody notices that today's 10000 are different from the previous days 10000?

Where do 7, 8 , 9 thousand people WAIT in a camp? It's called staging.

Do they get meals?

Do they get water?

.
Do you ever offer anything factual, or just mindlessly parrot lies told by your betters and document your ignorance of the history you're so rabid to deny?
.

 

[Nick Terry]

I'm not going to waste my time doing that. As I've said, I know that we both get our information about the AR camps from sources we believe are reliable. If you believe my source isn't reliable, it's because you rely on a different source that you believe is better. So simply tell me who that is and we can go from there.

Arad was writing in 1987, before the Luftwaffe air photos of Treblinka were discovered, and before the Belzec and Sobibor excavations; not to mention before the Hoefle telegram was discovered. New evidence must always be taken into account in any serious discussion.

On topographical matters, more recent sources are therefore going to be superior, eg Alex Bay's reconstruction of Treblinka utilising the air photos, which spends a manifestly longer amount of time than Arad does on the issues which seem to be bugging you. For Belzec and Sobibor, then the studies by Kola and Haimi et al are clearly superior to Arad on the topography.

Regarding mass graves and cremation, Roberto Muehlenkamp's blog articles about the Reinhard camps are by far the most detailed and comprehensive write-ups to date, incorporating the work of Kola, Haimi et al, Bay as well as Peter Laponder and others who have studied the topography of the camps.

It would be nice if instead of trying to dismiss these sources with ad hominems, you actually discussed them properly for a change.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Arad was writing in 1987, before the Luftwaffe air photos of Treblinka were discovered, and before the Belzec and Sobibor excavations; not to mention before the Hoefle telegram was discovered. New evidence must always be taken into account in any serious discussion.

On topographical matters, more recent sources are therefore going to be superior, eg Alex Bay's reconstruction of Treblinka utilising the air photos, which spends a manifestly longer amount of time than Arad does on the issues which seem to be bugging you. For Belzec and Sobibor, then the studies by Kola and Haimi et al are clearly superior to Arad on the topography.

Regarding mass graves and cremation, Roberto Muehlenkamp's blog articles about the Reinhard camps are by far the most detailed and comprehensive write-ups to date, incorporating the work of Kola, Haimi et al, Bay as well as Peter Laponder and others who have studied the topography of the camps.

It would be nice if instead of trying to dismiss these sources with ad hominems, you actually discussed them properly for a change.

This seems rather unfair as it implies that people need to read more than one book on a topic, must keep up with new discoveries, and must stay current with the explanations of the evidence which various researchers and scholars put forward. I would not be surprised if, just like the pathological liars, you come up with 200 sources on Treblinka. That is just nuts: I want ONE!

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
Do you ever offer anything factual, or just mindlessly parrot lies told by your betters and document your ignorance of the history you're so rabid to deny?
.

Application and systems programmers don't think details they think parameters and limits.

 

[TSR]

Application and systems programmers don't think details they think parameters and limits.

.
Wrong and completely irrelevant, since we are talking about history.

So allow me to re-phrase: do you ever offer anything factual and relevant, or just mindlessly parrot lies told by your betters and document your ignorance of the history you're so rabid to deny?
.

 

[uke2se]

I will prove my assertions. But only if you agree on some basics first. Can we take judicial notice of what Arad wrote in BST? That is, can we agree that what Arad said about the nature and character of the AR camps is an accurate reflection of what holocaust historians believe today? If not, who is a better source?

I predict you'll dance around answering because being unable to nail down any specifics about the holocaust is what keeps it alive. As long as it's a soft gelatinous mass that can ooze out of it's contradictions, it remains unfalsifiable. But if it firms up a little, it becomes a little bit more fragile. That's why you avoid agreeing to any hard data--you know that if the holocaust gets hard, I can nail it.

I will not agree with anything until I have seen your attempted proof for your assertion. You made the assertion. The onus is on you to back it up. Now do it.

I predict you will keep dancing around this issue despite the fact that it is clear the burden of evidence is on you.

 

[Saggy]

This was answered years ago: 49 square meters in the original.
l[/url]

Well we have the NY published English version with 125 sq. ft.

And we've now seen claims that the original figue is 125 sq. m., and 49 sq. m.

We have link to a typeset 1944 Polish version, but we don't know how this version corresponds with the English version, i.e. close or loose translation, and we don't know the figure for the room size.

And apparently there is a Yiddish version, but we don't have a link, and we don't know how this version corresponds with the English version,

I suppose the claim is that Wiernk orginally wrote the book in Polish?

So, what are the room size figures for the Polish and Yiddish versions? How about a link to the Yiddish version?

Maybe someone could post the relevant passages from each version along with a literal word for word English translation. Along with publication dates, etc.

 

[Wroclaw]

The Yiddish version says 49 square meters. The link I provided to the HC blog has a picture from the Yiddish text.

He wrote the book in Yiddish.

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
Do you ever offer anything factual, or just mindlessly parrot lies told by your betters and document your ignorance of the history you're so rabid to deny?
.

Parroting betters? You must be kidding.

Hey Wroclaw, how about some answers?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post

Proximity is a key to the Holohoax myth. 10000 people who pee at least three times a day are waiting to be gassed.
Nobody notices that today's 10000 are different from the previous days 10000?

Where do 7, 8 , 9 thousand people WAIT in a camp? It's called staging.

Do they get meals?

Do they get water?

Originally Posted by Wroclaw View Post

Says the guy who continues to bleat "just one witness" when he's been given 200.

It figures you'd defend the nancy-boy tactics of Jonnie Hargis.

Hey Wroclaw, why don't you supply one witness?

How about a mouse?

Review: Courageous ingenuity of Maus shines through, 25 years later

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/enter...032/story.html

 

[Dave Rogers]

Parroting betters? You must be kidding.

I have to agree with Clayton here. Other Holocaust deniers are in no sense better than he is.

Dave

 

[Clayton Moore]

Makes Sense

http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-can-so-many-people-be-so-incredibly.html

There’s a recurrent peculiarity that goes off in my head like an atom bomb, just about every day and that is, how come Eisenhower, De Gaulle, Churchill and everyone else who wrote about their time, never mentioned death camps, gas chambers or crematoriums? How come there was an increase in the population of a certain group from before the war to after the war? How come the Red Cross, which was the most in the know organization of anyone connected with the facts of the war and the camps, has one figure as to the deaths and now we got another figure? Should I go figure? How come the death count at Auschwitz was lowed by 3 million from 4.5 million to 1.5 million by the very people claiming six million and you still get six million? How come all these forensic tests come up with no evidence of mass graves? How come just over one hundred thousand survivors have translated into a present count of from two hundred and fifty thousand to over one million survivors? That’s an impossibility but there it is. I could add all kinds of supportive facts to an argument that I couldn’t be making because it’s against the law but this is not the big ticket item.

 

[Wroclaw]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility. Do not edit mod boxes.

 

[Wroclaw]

Well, I think I said everything that needs to be said...

 

[twinstead]

How come no matter how many witnesses are shown, deniers keep asking to show "just one witness"? Are these folks reading the same thread everybody else is?

 

[Wroclaw]

Part of it is that they're not terribly bright.

For those of them who are marginally more intelligent than the rest, it's the notion that by pointing to the inconsistencies or minor irrelevances in one individual's testimony, they are "debunking" the entire history. Taking on several witnesses at once is far too dangerous, because it points out rather clearly how, in fact, similar the testimonies are to one another, particularly with regard to the most important details.

 

[Border Reiver]

Problem being that many of them view the similarity in testimonies as evidence that there has been collaboration amongst said witnesses to fabricate the story.

Damn, I feel dirty after having written that.

 

[TSR]

http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-can-so-many-people-be-so-incredibly.html

.
Mindless parroting from CM it is, then.
.

There’s a recurrent peculiarity that goes off in my head like an atom bomb, just about every day and that is, how come Eisenhower, De Gaulle, Churchill and everyone else who wrote about their time, never mentioned death camps, gas chambers or crematoriums?

.
Because this statement as a whole is a lie.

Eisenhower, DeGaulle and Churchill were writing memoirs, not history books, and were not personally involved with death camps, gas chambers or krema.

Eisenhower never mentioned the Battle of the Bulge. Guess it didn't happen.

DeGaulle never mentioned the Death Marches of Bataan, so no one died there, either.

Churchill does not discuss the draft in the US, so no conscripts could possibly have died.

There were people, however, that were there and doing that, and *did* wriet about those topics. You know this to be the case because you've been forced to make ludicrous claim about their writings not being possible because you pretend not to personally feel the Germans could ever have done such things.
.

How come there was an increase in the population of a certain group from before the war to after the war?

.
Easy peasy: this is another lie.
.

How come the Red Cross, which was the most in the know organization of anyone connected with the facts of the war and the camps, has one figure as to the deaths and now we got another figure?

.
For the same reason any death toll gets revised: better information becomes available. So that we know that tens of thousands did not die on 9/11.
.

Should I go figure? How come the death count at Auschwitz was lowed by 3 million from 4.5 million to 1.5 million by the very people claiming six million and you still get six million?

.
Again, this has been pointed out to you, personally befpre.

I'll type it slowly this time:

F i r s t ,
.
t h e
.
s i x
.
m i l l i o n
.
r e f e r r e d
.
t o
.
a l l
.
v i c t i m s ,
.
n o t
.
j u s t
.
t h e
.
o n e s
.
y o u
.
h a t e .

.
S e c o n d ,
.
i t
.
i s
.
a
.
f i g u r e
.
w h i c h
.
w a s
.
n e v e r
.
u s e d
.
t o
.
c a l c u l a t e
.
t h e
.
t o t a l
.
d e a t h
.
t o l l .

.
T h i r d ,
.
t h i s
.
i s
.
b e c a u s e
.
n o
.
o n e
.
o n
.
* t h i s *
.
s i d e
.
o f
.
t h e
.
C u r t a i n
.
e v e r
.
a c c e p t e d
.
t h a t
.
f i g u r e .

Now, will you stop lying about it?
.

How come all these forensic tests come up with no evidence of mass graves?

.
Another lie.
.

How come just over one hundred thousand survivors have translated into a present count of from two hundred and fifty thousand to over one million survivors?

.
How come you have yet to cite an honest point in this post?
.
And while you're jumping all over Worclaw about unanswered questions, how about answering some of the ones pointed at you?
You can start by naming a single lie on THHP's site.
.

 

[Dogzilla]

I will not agree with anything until I have seen your attempted proof for your assertion. You made the assertion. The onus is on you to back it up. Now do it.

I predict you will keep dancing around this issue despite the fact that it is clear the burden of evidence is on you.

If you can't tell me who you consider to be a reliable source the exercise is pointless. Did you happen to notice Nick Terry's response? That was a constructive response. Would agree that his sources are reliable?

Actually, let's just play the game your way. I'll prove my assertion and then you'll tell me what you agree with.

Treblinka wouldn't work as it is described because it is impossible to bring two million people at the same time to a camp that is on 20 x 25 feet and then feed them to crocodiles over a twelve hour period. That's 4,000 people per square foot at the start of the operation. Crowding would be alleviated through the process of feeding 166,666 people to the crocodiles every hour (or 2,777 every minute or 46 every second) but there's no space for the crocodiles at the start of the operation. So that's why Treblinka wouldn't work.

So what do you have a problem with? Do you think I've inflated the number of victims at Treblinka? Are you going to deny that the main method of execution was being eaten by crocodiles? Do you think that I've underestimated the length of time the camp was in operation? Do you think the camp was a little bigger in size? Or do you think that four thousand people can easily fit in a square foot and still leave room for crocodiles because crocodiles don't take up any space and only my personal incredulity and hatred of the Jews would cause me to fail to see this?

 

[Wroclaw]

Well, certainly your hatred of the Jews...

Oh, just kidding. I meant your incredulity.