• 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:
Er, 'converted into an air raid shelter'?
Click to expand...
.
Proving once again the depths of Sagg's willful ignorance of the very history zie is so rabid to deny.

http://www.hdot.org/en/learning/myth-fact/airraid

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-04.html

You're so fond of Scrapbook under other circumstances:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitzscrapbook/tour/Auschwitz1/Auschwitz08.html

You're fond of Leuchter, too

http://www.zundelsite.org/leuchter/report1/auschwitz_k1.html

How about Crowell?

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconabr_2.html

Porter?

http://www.cwporter.com/bild3.htm



Had enough, or do I continue, Saggs?
.
 
Saggy said:
Er, 'converted into an air raid shelter'? Good Lord man, can you at least pretend to have a shred of honesty and integrity for one moment?
Click to expand...

This is a marvellous illustration of how poorly deniers absorb the materials they are meant to know.

One would have thought that after many years of trolling for revisionism, Saggy might have encountered things like the Sehn report (which is online: google German Crimes In Poland Auschwitz), the Pelt report (also online), Pressac's Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (also online), or indeed, read some of the revisionist literature which acknowledges the fact that in 1944, the crematorium in the Auschwitz main camp was converted into an air raid shelter. The blueprints for the conversion survive and are reproduced in several sources - in Pressac and in Pelt's book version of his report.

As already stated, the conversion from crematorium > air raid shelter was highlighted in the official Polish report on Auschwitz, published in 1946. This is beyond rational dispute.

After the war, as is made clear in Pressac and many other recent sources, the air raid shelter was reconstructed into the crematorium-gas chamber which is on display at the Auschwitz State Museum today.

I know for a fact that this issue has been discussed before on this thread, most recently in June 2011, when Saggy was schooled on this precise same issue by me. And it was discussed before on another thread in September 2010, when Dogzilla's ignorance was corrected.

To his credit, Dogzilla, who is more than capable of repeating himself when he wants to sink to the occasion, has not seemingly tried it on re: Krema I since. Alas, the same cannot be said for Saggy.

Myriad has spoken often of the masochistic lie, a lie so blatant that the liar cannot possibly hope to convince anyone with it, yet persists on repeating that lie nonetheless.

It would, however, apparently be giving Saggy too much credit to say he is lying on this one. He evidently simply cannot absorb easily digested information and automatically defaults back to his original misconception.

Either way, Saggy's total lack of credibility is once again reconfirmed.
 
Nick Terry said:
After the war, as is made clear in Pressac and many other recent sources, the air raid shelter was reconstructed into the crematorium-gas chamber which is on display at the Auschwitz State Museum today.
Click to expand...

I'll take in then that the date of Pressac's book is when the fake was acknowledged.

Removed breach of Rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saggy said:
I'll take in then that the date of Pressac's book is when the fake was acknowledged.
!
Click to expand...
.
And, as so often you would be wrong.

A reconstruction is not generally cosidered a "fake".

And you're even wrong on the date. Which part of:
.
Jan Sehn's investigative report, published in 1946, stated that Krema I was converted to an air raid shelter in 1944.
Click to expand...
.
... is confusing you?

.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
I'll take in then that the date of Pressac's book is when the fake was acknowledged.

I'm pretty sure that you are so accustomed to dissembling and outright lying that you have lost all connection to the notion of an honest answer to a simple question, a sad case, to be sure !
Click to expand...
Helpful bit of advice: admit you were wrong gracefully, and thank Nick and TSR for the information, which you may then use for whatever purpose you wish in the future.

Anything else, you come across as not only a troll, but beyond stubborn.
 
Last edited:
Nick Terry said:
Saggy, give it up. This one isn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

Good grief. This exchange is even uglier than his confusion, then silence on the Black Book. Right down there with the lot of them observing one of their mates doctor a statement from a historian and not make a peep.
 
About what? Would you care to clarify whatever point you think you're making?

That's an entirely rhetorical question, by the way.
 
TSR said:
.
You were given many specific details in my original post and in my and LC's follow ups.

But do tell us: what is "fuzzy" about "indiscriminate slaughter of Jews qua Jews"? Seem pretty clear and specific to me...
.
Click to expand...

And TSR concurs with Lemmycaution, "indiscriminate slaughter of Jews qua Jews" is a specific detail!

Here's another helpful hint: Asking who, what, when, where, why, how will get you closer to a specific detail. But, like I said, you guys like to keep it fuzzy.
 
Dogzilla said:
And TSR concurs with Lemmycaution, "indiscriminate slaughter of Jews qua Jews" is a specific detail!

Here's another helpful hint: Asking who, what, when, where, why, how will get you closer to a specific detail. But, like I said, you guys like to keep it fuzzy.
Click to expand...
Just not the details you want. How about the details on Ponar, are they "fuzzy"?
 
TSR said:
.
That much is obvious/

So do yourself a favour and stop trying to crack "jokes" about people dying, hmmmn?
Click to expand...

Who tried to crack jokes? You asked me how many people were buried in the mass graves at Madjanek. I told you. Why don't you give us a number that won't make you laugh if you don't like mine?
.

.
That there is not the slightest hint of evidence that they were reconstructed.
Click to expand...

So you are stating emphatically that the door with the plate glass window opening into the gas chamber is the original door that prevented people from breaking out of the gas chamber?


Really? Where can I read this clause in the TOS?
.
Click to expand...

There's a whole link devoted to it. Click on "a word about denial"
 
Dogzilla said:
Here's another helpful hint: Asking who, what, when, where, why, how will get you closer to a specific detail. But, like I said, you guys like to keep it fuzzy.
Click to expand...
I think I see the problem.

Initially, you wrote,
Now, all you need to do is find an historian who endorses ANY specific detail found in ANY specific holocaust survivor or perpetrator testimony so we can see what such an "endorsement" looks like.
Click to expand...
Now you change the request from "ANY" to "who, what, when, where, why, how." That's fine. It would help if you specified up front. What's left unclear is whether qualifying testimony has to include all elements - who, what, when, where, why, how, in what order, in what formats the testimony needs to be, whether it has to contain full names with addresses and ID cards, how exact the dates and locations have to be, etc. We - and least I did - thought that by ANY you meant any . . .
 
Last edited:
Dogzilla said:
If they banned him it was because he violated the taboo. And if they banned him, it doesn't appear to still be in effect. His status earlier today said "member"
Click to expand...

AFAIK there was a quasi-amnesty at Axis History Forum for banned members some time ago.

However it's fairly clear that Saggy wasn't banned for denial, he was banned for hopelessly bad trolling and generally proving himself to be a retard. Of course, the two things tend to go hand in hand.

AHF states upfront that it won't tolerate racism, pro-Nazi views or Holocaust denial; nor will it tolerate denial of the Armenian genocide or Holodomor. That's all true.

So the pro-Nazi, pro-denial types tend to be rather circumspect in acknowledging their true motives, although it's usually easy to see what they are. David Thomspon, the long-suffering moderator of the war crimes forum, bends over backwards to give the deniers the benefit of the doubt, and responds with large quantities of sourced information. The result is that they are routinely exposed as ignoramuses, as happened to Saggy on several threads there.

One such thread ends with David Thompson announcing that a fifth thread started by Saggy on the same subject had been deleted, after he had explained a few facts of life to the poor little dear:

It may come as a surprise to you that most books are written after the event they describe. It may also surprise you to know that the internet was rather limited in size and service in 1962. The fact that a book published in 1988 contains excerpts from testimony given in 1962 is also unremarkable.

Most histories of the US Civil War were written well after the war ended in 1865. The same is true of histories written about the French intervention in Mexico during 1862-1867. Most histories of the Franco-Prussian War, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War, the Boxer rebellion, the Russo-Japanese War, the revolutions in Mexico, China and Russia, WWI and WWII, etc. were written after those wars had ended as well. I suppose you think those accounts are phastasmagoria too.

Your question ("why in the world should we believe a book written in 1988 as a primary source for testimony from the 40's, 50's, 60's ?") shows how far you have wandered from the thought processes of normal people, and highlights the unreality (or surreality) of your approach to history. The publication of the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, setting forth all of the Union and Confederate reports and correspondence during the US Civil War, wasn't completed until the 1890s -- a generation after the war had ended.

Since your posts bring neither intelligence nor learning to our discussions here, and fall substantially below the standards for the research sections of the forum, I will delete all of your subsequent self-delusory posts. You've wasted enough of our time, Saggy. Adios
Click to expand...
Earlier on, David Thomspon encountered Saggy's fondness for trolling for survivor testimonies, and gave the following reply, which pretty much sums up the idiocy of his ongoing troll about 'one credible Jewish witness' on here:

Saggy -- You wrote:
Well, as I've been trying to point out, what I MEANT was survivors' testimony, not Nazi defendants testimony in the various trials.
​
Well, your approach strikes me as weirdly dysfunctional. Our readers may be having similar reactions. If you're trying to find out what happened, why would anyone restrict their available information to a single sub-category of witnesses, or put on some other arbitrary and narrow set of intellectual blinders? It's like trying to solve a problem by putting on a full-head helmet with a miniscule viewslit, instead of taking a real look at what's out there.

If intelligence analysts or police detectives took this approach to solving factual questions -- like trying to get an overview of Al-Qaeda or Red Brigades bombings by limiting their interviews to only the victims, and ignoring informants and other available evidence -- they'd be fired as soon as they explained it. The reason is obvious -- unless you're trying to avoid solving the crimes, the approach is functionally irrational.
Click to expand...
9 out of 10 deniers who have tried it on at AHF have been banned essentially for being a-holes, as for example happened to a certain 'Sean Lamb', who later mutated into 'little grey rabbit'. I'm sure he is man enough to confirm that is what happened. Oh wait... didn't he just get the boot from here for being an a-hole?
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Why don't you refer to him/her as a person? Or an author? Why must you refer to this person as a "Jew"? That just sounds.......prejudice.
Click to expand...

Holocaust denial is always miscast as anti-Semitic. Anti-denialist folks believe that questioning a statement to the effect that three people can fit into one square foot or that ten times as many people as you've ever seen at Disneyland Anaheim can easily be buried in an area one seventh the size of the public area of Disneyland Anaheim doesn't have anything to do with visualizing objects in three dimensional space. It's all about hating the Jews. Questioning statements of fact from holocaust survivors is tantamount to calling all Jews liars.

It's wrong and it's stupid but that's what happens when you don't have a logical coherent counterargument.

So there was quote about gas vans that was from the Black Book of Jewry. Maybe Russian Jewry. Maybe Polish Jewry. Maybe just Jewry. I'm not sure and I don't think it was ever decided. It doesn't even really matter. Because the quote was from a survivor witness, the person quoted was most likely Jewish. Maybe not. But probably. The books themselves, whichever one, had very strong ties to the Jewish community. The Black Book of Polish Jewry was published by the American Federation for Polish Jews and the Association of Jewish Refugees and Immigrants from Poland. The two authors of the Black Book of Russian Jewry were both Jewish.

So we have a probable Jewish eyewitness quoted in a "Jewish" historical resource. No matter what, since the book(s) is about the holocaust, the only reason somebody could cast doubt on it's truthfulness is going to be anti-Semitism.

Anywho. the person quoted refers to 'hermetically sealed doors' in an absurd description of how trucks were used to murder Jews. Somebody from the holocaust team asked what was so absurd about the description. So I analyzed the absurdity of the method of execution. Because the specific detail of the 'hermetically sealed door' adds to the absurdity of the story, I mentioned it.

I was then attacked for incorporating the hermetically sealed door into my analysis. The first salvo came from somebody questioning me why I said the doors were hermetically sealed. My answer was because that's what the quote says. The second salvo attacked me because a hermetically sealed door is "a state of being in the cargo hold that no one present had any way to determine, and so can be discounted on that basis as being hyperbole." With this response, I'm being told that the person I was quoted (who was Jewish) in a book published by the Jewish community, had no way of knowing if the door was hermetically sealed or not and that "hermetically sealed door" was merely hyperbole. Or what the rest of us would call a lie.

So I pointed out that this attack on me and my argument was essentially an attack on the veracity of a Jewish eyewitness. Subsequent attacks followed a similar line of reasoning: the (Jewish) eyewitness didn't really know what he was talking about or the (Jewish) eyewitness was misquoted or mistranslated or whatever.

What you are responding to is the tail end of this particular sub-discussion in which I was being chastised because I incorporated what a Jewish eyewitness had said about a specific detail of the holocaust. Interestingly, this was the only rebuttal to my entire analysis. Nobody said anything else about the absurdity of the description except for the fact that when the witness said 'hermetically sealed doors' I took it to mean 'hermetically sealed doors'.

Or, to take it to the logical meta-level, my problem is that I believed a Jewish eyewitness. Since I love irony, I said what I said in a way that highlighted that irony as best as I could. I'm sorry if it sounds like prejudice to you. That's because it is. But when somebody from Team holocaust says Jews are liars or idiots, I don't believe in sugarcoating it to make them sound PC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom