Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[TSR]

Why are all the believer posters avoiding like the plague the following historical facts?

.
Because they are, at best, your interpretations of facts?
.

The Red Cross statements of those years during WWII real time were that there was no "Holocaust" type of extermination going on.

.
You can actually *cite* these statements, right? Or a statement that they had been allowed to physically inspect any camp other than Theresienstadt (and that after a 9 month delay used to "clean up the camp), hmmn? When did their inspection tour of Birkenau occur? Treblinka? Dachau?
.

In their writings, by omission, Ike, Winnie, or de Gaulle averred that there were no gas chambers killing millions of Jewish children, women and men.

.
We've talked about your little personal definitions before: it is not possible to aver by omission, since the meaning of that word is "to declare in a positive manner."

If one could, this would mean that you have averred that you regularly post lies in support of your hate, since despite having far more opportunity and motive to assert the opposite, you have by omission admitted those lies.

We all knew they were, anyway -- but thanks for your confirmation.

Now, given that history of untruth, and especially given the fact that you mostly simply assert without citation -- why should anyone here take your statements as anything except more of those repeated lies you have now averred you post?

After all, by your standards, there was not a single shot fired during WWII, since each of these omitted discussing ammo inventories...
.

 

[TSR]

Saggs, in a desperate attempt to prove the post he 'jokes' about correct, cannot even cite *that* accurately.

Your citation is to 7761, but the quote is from 7756.

Denier "scholarship" at its finest...

 

[LemmyCaution]

We've talked about your little personal definitions before: it is not possible to aver by omission, since the meaning of that word is "to declare in a positive manner."

If one could, this would mean that you have averred that you regularly post lies in support of your hate, since despite having far more opportunity and motive to assert the opposite, you have by omission admitted those lies.

We all knew they were, anyway -- but thanks for your confirmation.

Now, given that history of untruth, and especially given the fact that you mostly simply assert without citation -- why should anyone here take your statements as anything except more of those repeated lies you have now averred you post?

After all, by your standards, there was not a single shot fired during WWII, since each of these omitted discussing ammo inventories...

What are the chances that Clayton Moore has read the Churchill volumes, for example, and could explain what they do and do not cover, the areas of emphasis, Churchill's goals in writing the books, how they were composed, and how well done the history in them is?

 

[Saggy]

What are the chances that Clayton Moore has read the Churchill volumes, for example, and could explain what they do and do not cover, the areas of emphasis, Churchill's goals in writing the books, how they were composed, and how well done the history in them is?

I'm not surprised that Churchill failed to mention the hoax gas chambers, as did Eisenhower and DeGaulle, after all Elie Wiesel who spent a year as a prisoner at Auschwitz and wrote a book describing his experiences, also failed to mention the hoax gas chambers.

What does surprise me is that Wiesel's book, 'Night', which proves that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, is promoted by the holohoax establishment and is recommended reading in many schools. Folks, that's chutzpah, and as the record shows, well founded.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I'm not surprised that Churchill failed to mention the hoax gas chambers, as did Eisenhower and DeGaulle, after all Elie Wiesel who spent a year as a prisoner at Auschwitz and wrote a book describing his experiences, also failed to mention the hoax gas chambers.

What does surprise me is that Wiesel's book, 'Night', which proves that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, is promoted by the holohoax establishment and is recommended reading in many schools. Folks, that's chutzpah, and as the record shows, well founded.

Wiesel's book does not prove any such thing.

Do you know the meaning of "to prove"? You seem to use this verb incorrectly repeatedly. Do you know the layout of the Auschwitz camp complex and how it operated? Do you know Wiesel's biography? Do you know anything at all?

 

[TSR]

Elie Wiesel who spent a year as a prisoner at Auschwitz and wrote a book describing his experiences, also failed to mention the hoax gas chambers.

.
Of course, even those *this* has been pointed out to Saggs before, zie is forced by zir hate to ignore the fact that Wiesel was at Monowitz (Auschwitz III) while the chambers were at Birkenau (Auschwitz II) which had officially been split into separate logistical units a year before Wiesel was deported (BTW, Saggs: what *had* Wiesel done to deserve that fate?) almost a mile away.

You know, I was just reading a short memoir of someone who had worked at Billy Bob's Texas, and zie didn't mention Rodeo Park once, and it's even closer...
.

What does surprise me is that Wiesel's book, 'Night', which proves that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, is promoted by the holohoax establishment and is recommended reading in many schools. Folks, that's chutzpah, and as the record shows, well founded.

.
Of course, Night does no such thing, any more than that performer's description of zir time as one of the "house bands" at BBT proves there isn't a baseball diamond at Rodeo Park.
.

 

[Wroclaw]

Ike, Winnie, or de Gaulle were never in Auschwitz. That's why they didn't mention gas chambers in their writings after WWII?

That's certainly part of it.

Churchill wrote about the Holocaust. So did Eisenhower. In fact, Eisenhower wrote about Ohrdruf, because he was there.

Why are all the believer posters avoiding like the plague the following historical facts?

The Red Cross statements of those years during WWII real time were that there was no "Holocaust" type of extermination going on.

Nobody in their right mind who is carrying out an extermination program is going to demonstrate it to the Red Cross.

In their writings, by omission, Ike, Winnie, or de Gaulle averred that there were no gas chambers killing millions of Jewish children, women and men.

You don't aver by omission.

Get a freaking dictionary.

 

[Wroclaw]

I'm not surprised that Churchill failed to mention the hoax gas chambers, as did Eisenhower and DeGaulle, after all Elie Wiesel who spent a year as a prisoner at Auschwitz and wrote a book describing his experiences, also failed to mention the hoax gas chambers.

What does surprise me is that Wiesel's book, 'Night', which proves that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, is promoted by the holohoax establishment and is recommended reading in many schools. Folks, that's chutzpah, and as the record shows, well founded.

Nobody cares what surprises you. You've been exposed as a degenerate liar. You might as well go back on ignore, from my standpoint.

 

[Clayton Moore]

That's certainly part of it.

Churchill wrote about the Holocaust. So did Eisenhower. In fact, Eisenhower wrote about Ohrdruf, because he was there.



Nobody in their right mind who is carrying out an extermination program is going to demonstrate it to the Red Cross.



You don't aver by omission.

Get a freaking dictionary.

If one can lie by omission it isn't that much of a stretch to prove a point by noting what was avoided so as not to lie.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/quiz/index.htm

Vocabulary Quiz
Your score: 3660
Average Scores
Teens: 1860
20-somethings: 2280
30-somethings: 2490
40-somethings: 2640
50-somethings: 2770
60-somethings: 2880
70 and above: 2750

 

[Cyrix686]

Is he playing that scratched Wiesel record again?

 

[Wroclaw]

If one can lie by omission it isn't that much of a stretch to prove a point by noting what was avoided so as not to lie.

Um... what?

 

[TSR]

If one can lie by omission it isn't that much of a stretch to prove a point by noting what was avoided so as not to lie.

.
Lying by omission is generally an active process, such as "CM, Have you found those lies on THHP's site yet? < CM changes the subject >"

Had any of the authors written what they said was a complete history of everything to do with WWII, rather than "here are my experiences" and then didn't make the mention, *then* you might possibly have the beginnings of a point.

Oh, and it's not a question of vocabulary, it is a grammar issue. Learn the difference before you start the "mine is bigger" dance.

Oops, sorry, that'd be too much like actually doing research for you: Vocabulary: the words of a language Grammar: the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax, the constructs themselves

You're trying to claim to be a great house builder because you pronounce and spell words like "nails" properly.

By your standard, it can be assumed that there are no facilities for concerts at the Walt Disney Family Museum in San Francisco, because someone writing about the recent repairs to the Golden Gate Bridge didn't even mention the museum.
.

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
Lying by omission is generally an active process, such as "CM, Have you found those lies on THHP's site yet? < CM changes the subject >"

Had any of the authors written what they said was a complete history of everything to do with WWII, rather than "here are my experiences" and then didn't make the mention, *then* you might possibly have the beginnings of a point.

Oh, and it's not a question of vocabulary, it is a grammar issue. Learn the difference before you start the "mine is bigger" dance.

Oops, sorry, that'd be too much like actually doing research for you: Vocabulary: the words of a language Grammar: the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax, the constructs themselves

You're trying to claim to be a great house builder because you pronounce and spell words like "nails" properly.

By your standard, it can be assumed that there are no facilities for concerts at the Walt Disney Family Museum in San Francisco, because someone writing about the recent repairs to the Golden Gate Bridge didn't even mention the museum.
.

Going through life avoiding the temptation to participate in telling lies is an ongoing, active process.

 

[TSR]

Going through life avoiding the temptation to participate in telling lies is an ongoing, active process.

.
Perhaps for some people -- the rest of us have to actively make the effort to lie, not the reverse.

And what, exactly, does this have to do with the spanking you just received?

Oh, it's that ol' lying by omission (to yourself, that you weren't) thing again. You seem to have practiced it long and hard, should be second nature to you by now. Is there a ball diamond at Rodeo Park? Can one attend concerts at the Disney Museum? Do you understand the difference between vocab and grammar now? And have you found those lies on the THHP site yet?
.

 

[Wroclaw]

Going through life avoiding the temptation to participate in telling lies is an ongoing, active process.

Tell me something: When you walk down the street, does theme music play?

 

[Dogzilla]

Not that I am supporting what they did in any way but radios and cameras are things you don't normally allow in prisons. Why does that seem to surprise you?

Shaving prisoners heads was common in prisons at that time. Exchanging prisoners clothes and shoes for prison issued uniforms is SOP in prisons even today. So why are piles of human hair and a display case full of shoes shown as evidence of the holocaust? Because you have to recast the ordinary as sinister if you want to prove extermination.

What do you have to say about this photograph of Japanese Americans waiting in line for the gas chamber?

Fantasy.



BS. Every single one of them could be located in whatever new place they lived. Their families knew what happened to them, they continued on with their lives. None of them were missing and none of them ever claimed any were missing. 100% accountability.



The "missing" that no Japanese Americans have ever said were missing in the first place?

I don't know where you found that ridiculous example but it makes no sense.

Then finding them shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Moss]

Hmm, was it usual for prisoners to get their gold teeth broken out? SS judge Konrad Morgen seems to have been pretty sure SS guardsmen were able to filch huge lumps of it because there was just so much available.
While it is true that prisons shaved the heads of inmates(and in Soviet Neoczarist Russia they still do afaik) and they had to wear prison clothing, the usual thing to do with the latter to keep it sorted so as to give it back when the prisoner got out. Including all the stuff they in their bags and coffers. Why exactly was there nothing in place in German camps to do just that at a later time?

 

[Dogzilla]

Feel free to provide something, anything really, other than "argument from incredulity."

Feel free to provide something, anything really, other than "argument from incredulity" for the nonexistence of Bigfoot, UFOs, or the Tooth Fairy.

E.G. why a gas chamber with "unsealed wooden doors" is absurd.

"unsealed" can have two meanings here. One meaning is that the wood itself is not sealed. If that's what is meant then the wood would easily absorb cyanide gas. After repeated gassings the door itself would absorb enough gas to remain toxic. Nobody could touch it or even get near it without getting sick. This would greatly complicate the 24/7 operation of the gas chamber.

The other meaning is that the door does not form an airtight seal. This would allow an exchange of gas from the inside to the outside and vice versa. Air getting into the gas chamber would dilute the concentration of cyanide gas inside the gas chamber. Cyanide gas leaking out would be dangerous to anybody outside the gas chamber. Especially since there would be no warning agent to indicate how toxic the air actually was.

In either case, it is absurd.

 

[Wroclaw]

Shaving prisoners heads was common in prisons at that time. Exchanging prisoners clothes and shoes for prison issued uniforms is SOP in prisons even today. So why are piles of human hair and a display case full of shoes shown as evidence of the holocaust? Because you have to recast the ordinary as sinister if you want to prove extermination.

But those things are not recast as sinister in a vacuum. Rather, these things are considered sinister in the context of (again): multiple forensic examinations, dozens of eyewitnesses, and several incriminating documents.

No historian worth his/her salt would take a single piece of evidence and conclude a history from it, so don't play dumb, OK?

What do you have to say about this photograph of Japanese Americans waiting in line for the gas chamber?

Then finding them shouldn't be a problem.[/QUOTE]

And indeed, finding them isn't a problem. They're back where they originally came from, by and large. For the European Jews, that is not the case. Nor is it the case for European Jews that the vast majority can be accounted for.

 

[Moss]

Which leads to the rather obvious question: why produce this dangerous substance without warning agent at all?