• 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.
little grey rabbit said:
Although in fairness, the folks that congregate at Holocaust Controversies are among the least talented in the Industry.

There have even been suggestions that this blog may have help lead to the suicide of Treblinka survivor Richard Glazar.
http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/436/Holocaust-Controversies-hate-blog-connection---suicide--T

I think this accusation may be going a bit far however. Holocaust Controversies blog is bad, but I am unsure if it is quite suicidally bad.
Click to expand...

Lurkerthe! I thought that was you!!
 
I suppose St. John the Baptist was an anti-Semite? Or Isaiah, whom John was quoting?
 
Clayton Moore said:
If you're not convinced by this thread that the Holocaust is mostly lies and fabrications you're likely a Zionist shill or a Zionist dupe.

If you are a lurker who has seen the light and realizes the Holocaust is a self serving lie send me a message.
Click to expand...
.
... or someone with normal reading comprehension, since everyone can see that the only lies you've managed to document are your own.

Yeah, and you're so smart, you can't even figure out how to use Google, or to properly cite, or really to cite at all...

Where *did* Mamet write that phrase, and why did you post the article with a made up title and note from an editor who doesn't exist?
.
 
Last edited:
Wroclaw said:
And this guy?

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-12940%2C_Ernst_Th%C3%A4lmann.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

This guy has a cap on so we can't tell if he's bald. Is that weed he's holding in his pocket? What kind of a question is that?
 
Dogzilla said:
This guy has a cap on so we can't tell if he's bald. Is that weed he's holding in his pocket? What kind of a question is that?
Click to expand...
.
One beyond "much smarter" CM's ability to answer, obviously.

Let's get back to those NYT articles you lied about...?
.
 
Nick Terry said:
I came across a wonderful story about an inmate of Monowitz catching an SS officer's dog, killing it, cutting it up for meat and cooking it for his comrades. This then provoked a big hue and cry among the SS, who supposedly tried to find out what happened to the dog, but the inmate was never found out.

At the moment I only have the one source, a memoir, recounting this event. But it gives me an idea for where to look to find possible corroboration. If I don't find corroboration, then either I would express caution or confine the story to a footnote. Or I might not use the story at all.

But maybe I might come across another story which fits into a certain pattern, for example stories which could fit under the heading of 'cocking a snook at the SS'. I might then try and evaluate to what extent camp prisoners attempted or succeeded in putting one past their captors. Some examples might be well corroborated, others might not. But if the example went 'solo', it would be apparent to readers that this was so, and there is no rule in history writing that says you can't use a story if there is only one source.

Quite often, authors write things up referring to only one source, but there are in fact many sources for what they're describing. That is quite a common practice (I'm speaking here of history writing in general, not of the Holocaust alone).

In the above example, if I were unable to find corroboration easily, then I would re-read the memoir to see if there are any signs of 'boasting' or telling tall tales.

However, the story is not prima facie implausible. I've seen plenty of evidence that dogs were caught and killed by starving populations in WWII, in Belarus and Ukraine. It's hardly unique to the Koreans to eat dog. Nor is it unusual for eyewitnesses to recount mundane stories about how they supplemented their food intakes from unofficial sources. Or to recount how they got away with things that annoyed the authorities/their superiors/their captors.

In A Bridge Too Far, Cornelius Ryan recounts an interview with a British paratrooper at Arnhem who found a chicken and cooked a stew with potatoes and vegetables, which went down a storm with his comrades, so much so that he only left himself a couple of lumps of potato, which supposedly was the best tasting food he ever ate.

From an evidentiary perspective this story is identical to the Monowitz inmates describing catching and cooking a dog; there's only the one source. And the same goes for literally zillions of little stories which are woven into the historical record.
Click to expand...

Good. Then it's settled. The lack of confessions from aliens is irrelevant.
 
little grey rabbit said:
I am guess because they understand the implications that for such a Hoax to have taken such a firm grip, that individuals who speak out are likely to suffer repercussions.
Click to expand...

How is this relevant on an anonymous Internet forum where few people use their real names to "speak out?" You, LGR, refuse to tell anyone your views in real life, yet you don't seem afraid to post here.

As far as the second part goes, crying "forgery" with no evidence is not debunking.
 
Last edited:
Dr Lammers defends the honor of the German nation at Nuremberg

Q. Very well. Do you remember in how many individual cases you received letters from private persons to the effect that Jews were killed in the East?
A. I received complaints of the kind and I investigated them as far as I could. But persons who gave me such information were never able to stand up for their facts. They were never eye witnesses. They could never give any eye witness. And in the last instance the information was always based on listening to foreign broadcasts which, of course, they did not want to admit because of course that was punishable.
Click to expand...
 
FluffyPersian said:
How is this relevant on an anonymous Internet forum where few people use their real names to "speak out?"
Click to expand...
A pity you didn't stop there.
You, LGR, refuse to tell anyone your views in real life, yet you don't seem afraid to post here.
Click to expand...

I hope you or your friends haven't been asking around my work-place again.
To be honest no one in real life is interested in my views in anything in particular. So I don't refuse anything, no one ever asks.

However, in answer to your question - I am happy to post here because I won't gain anything now by staying silent.
 
little grey rabbit said:
s
However, in answer to your question - I am happy to post here because I won't gain anything now by staying silent.
Click to expand...

How many times have you boasted about your ability to announce your anti-Semitic views online while blaming the "Zionists" for your cowardice about speaking of those same views in real life? Hey, who knows where Rachel Auerbach lurks?
 
FluffyPersian said:
How many times have you boasted about your ability to announce your anti-Semitic views online while blaming the "Zionists" for your cowardice about speaking of those same views in real life? Hey, who knows where Rachel Auerbach lurks?
Click to expand...

I don't know, how many times? The Rachel Auerbach reference went over my head. Are you sure you aren't referring to Philip Auerbach who testified he made human soap at Auschwitz and then was convicted for embezzling money earmarked for survivors?
 
Dogzilla said:
Good. Then it's settled. The lack of confessions from aliens is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Quite how you derive that from the series of posts from Wroclaw and myself is a complete mystery.

Anyway, if you're going to use the 'UFOs' gambit, you just accumulate Cretinous Repetitive Argument Points:

Auschwitz 4M
Elie Wiesel
UFOs - 1
witchcraft
'no physical evidence'
'no documents'
Allies bombed railway lines
'not a single credible Jewish witness'
 
Wroclaw said:
Which is what makes him a great object lesson for Clayton Moore. He was practically a national conservative.
Click to expand...

A point worth mentioning is that the assassination shocked the German public enough that it caused many to turn away from supporting groups like the Freikorps.
 
Nick Terry said:
Quite how you derive that from the series of posts from Wroclaw and myself is a complete mystery.

Anyway, if you're going to use the 'UFOs' gambit, you just accumulate Cretinous Repetitive Argument Points:

Auschwitz 4M
Elie Wiesel
UFOs - 1
witchcraft
'no physical evidence'
'no documents'
Allies bombed railway lines
'not a single credible Jewish witness'
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I'd like to kick up the Auschwitz 4M, Wiesel, UFOs, witchcraft, ho physical evidence, no documents, and not a signle credible Jewish eyewitness counts.

Also suggest adding a not a single body count and not a single mass grave count.

And ask the obvious question, with all these compelling arguments that the holocaust is a hoax, when do you give up and admit it ?

There's more arguments you should add to your list -

unsealed doors, plate glass window in Auschwtiz hoax gas chamber
window in Majdanek hoax gas chamber
no bodies for hoax Babi Yar massacre
not a single excavated mass grave
not a single grave
not a single credible named victim of Auschwitz gas chamber
hoax report of six million Jews systematically exterminated by Russians in 1906
hoax reports of holocaust of six, seven, eight, million Jews during WW I
Billy Wilder at Buchenwald and his hoax movie
Shower room posing as gas chamber at Dachau
hoax trial of Anton Kandel(?) of Sachsenhausen
precedent hoax trial of Henry Wirz
holohoax education in kindergarten in many states
Primo Levi, Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank in Auschwitz hospital, not exterminated
typhus victims at Belsen the only 'evidence' for the hoax


These are some of my favorites, I'll add more as I think of them
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
And ask the obvious question, with all these compelling arguments that the holocaust is a hoax, when do you give up and admit it ?
Click to expand...
.
About the time you come up with a *truly* compelling argument, one that has not been demonstrated to have been crap over and over, and so one from which you do not have to run.

As long as you pretend that your "holohoax" reflects anything other than your obsessive Jew hatred, you are doomed to failure.

Take, for example, your suggestion that the 4 Million gambit has merit: you could start with a point by point rebuttal against this.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom