General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[FluffyPersian]

SnakeTongue,

I don't see any mathematicians, statisticians or librarians in this group. You've now moved the goal posts and added "computer analysts" and economists, hoping we wouldn't notice.

I love how you highlighted "research assistant" in a historian/political scientist's biography, as if this magically turns him into a statistician.

 

[Border Reiver]

You got it very wrong.

Allies and Soviets were the ones which killed the Germans.

Germans soldiers died willing to defend the nation until the capital was defeated.

Who started the war by attacking the Allies?

This was the equivalent of walking up to the biggest guys in the bar punching them in the back of the head and then complaining that they got curbstomped.

 

[FluffyPersian]

Oh dear God. The three remaining deniers are truly a sorry spectacle of inarticulacy. One is Brazilian, one is a laconic cowboy, and the other one posts nonsense so cryptic it might as well come from a Brazilian cowboy.

It's high time to remind them of the following wise words from Horatius, written to denier guru denierbud/budly back in 2009:


and remind them of the staggering success of their brand as measured by the fact that no fewer than 133 people on this forum have voted to express their opinion that Holocaust denial is wrong, of whom 111 don't post on this thread and clearly have little intention of posting on this thread. So that's 111 people who have been alienated from your ideas, minimum.

I was thinking about pointing SnakeTongue to Horatius' post as well. He, absurd-on-its-face Clayton, and Dogzilla are doing a crappy job of advertising.

Small nitpick though: Of the 111, a few (maybe five) post or have posted on this thread or its predecessor. The rest are indeed lurkers on the thread.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Fascinating topic, isn't it? Currency. The people listed below equalled NLG 37.50 at the exchange rate applicable on 6 April 1943.

According to the "Empfangsbescheinigung" made up on that day, signed by the person who received that amount in payment for delivering these people to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung in Amsterdam on April 5, 1943. "Vorschussweise aus Judenvermögen bezahlt."

According to the links below, Levie Snoek lived until May 28 1943. The others died on April 16 1943. 3 days after the receipt was stamped "Sachlich richtig"
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/511731
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/501409
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/488929
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/488878
In Memoriam

Is your grasp on the basic idea of your participation in this topic getting better?

What you cited...

Isaac Serlui A'dam 28.8.1858 Transvaalplein 23 boven Amsterdam

Mietje Spier-de Metz A'dam 20.2.1882 Transvaalplein 10 huis

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8219804&postcount=895

...do not match with the reference you provided.

Isaac Serlui
Amsterdam, 26 augustus 1858

Mietje Spier-de Metz
Amsterdam, 10 februari 1882

http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/488878

http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/488929​

"Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung in Amsterdam" in 1943 was under the control of the Third Reich or the Dutch government?

 

[SnakeTongue]

How many bodies a muffle could burn at the same time? Present your numbers.

About this many?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_234094f933cf4b2014.gif[/qimg]


http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/28-cr-relief-for-punjab-mass-cremation-victims/254/32750/

The numbers what I got from your source:

Since then, the spokesperson said, the Commission heard the matter from time to time and through its proceedings on October 10, 2006, it found that out of the total 2,097 bodies which were cremated in the three districts of Amritsar, Majitha and Tarn Taran, 1245 bodies had been identified.

http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/28-cr-relief-for-punjab-mass-cremation-victims/254/32750/​

What this has anything to do with the cremation capacity of a muffle used in a concentration camp during the second world war?

This is not a cremation oven (from your reference):

 

[Dogzilla]

The numbers what I got from your source:

Since then, the spokesperson said, the Commission heard the matter from time to time and through its proceedings on October 10, 2006, it found that out of the total 2,097 bodies which were cremated in the three districts of Amritsar, Majitha and Tarn Taran, 1245 bodies had been identified.

http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/28-cr-relief-for-punjab-mass-cremation-victims/254/32750/​

What this has anything to do with the cremation capacity of a muffle used in a concentration camp during the second world war?

This is not a cremation oven (from your reference):

[qimg]http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7066/pun2w.jpg[/qimg]

I wonder if they believe in their minds that they are indeed offering evidence to support their assertions?

 

[FluffyPersian]

In short, all Snakey was doing was making a straw man, but he was trying to cloak it in such smoke and mirrors that no one could understand him, and he could claim victory by saying something no one could refute.
.

Yep, he's doing the same thing with his pseudo-statistical analysis.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Because your "analysis" was copied from Alvarez' book. Whether you did the initial copying or whether you merely copied from someone else who did the initial copying is irrelevant. The analysis is not yours, instead being something you cut and pasted from elsewhere without even verifying whether any of the claims in it were true or not. That's why it took you weeks to even answer my simple question about the "office code" nonsense.

The analysis is mine under my username and you will not change that by only arguing with an obvious appellare ad plagiarism and using the passage of time and space as evidence to support your improvable argument.

The fact that you got it from someone else who got it from Alvarez' book, rather than from Alvarez' book directly, shows how little you know or care to educate yourself on the topic. Your intellectually lazy refusal to just read some damn books about the Holocaust stretches to a refusal to even read denier books, even though you're apparently perfectly happy to cut and paste their arguments virtually verbatim as long as someone else has read the book and reposted those arguments for you to copy.

I read books about the subject, you just do not know that.

You ignore common sense.

Which isn't a fallacy when the person in question actually is an authority. Especially when you don't have anything to stand against it save for your own ignorance.

It is because "person in question actually is an authority" is call appeal of authority (My argument is the only authentic because I read the book of a authority on the subject discussed).

Yes, an intellectual fallacy in a open debate.

I have no reason to doubt that your weeks-after-the-fact "document comparison" is your own work. That's why it was weeks late, based on a scattershot and random selection of documents that can't seriously be used as the basis for a legitimate comparison, and was reliant on your complete lack of understanding of how the institutional symbols and filing codes on RSHA documentation actually worked.

Weeks late means I have another activities than post replies in the JREF forum.

You just ignore common sense.

 

[abaddon]

Weeks late means I have another activities than post replies in the JREF forum.

You just ignore common sense.

Yet your posting history shows this to be incorrect.

 

[SnakeTongue]

This is a post that I simply can't understand. Why did you post a string of random mathematical symbols and called it 'Argument'?

Because 000063's argument was based on "random" logic.

I could parse what you believed you said with the first five symbols of the sentence but after that it got even more confused and I didn't feel it necessary to try to take the effort to degibberish it. However, if you ever actually try to study logic, you'll quickly find out that your way to use the symbols and connectives is highly unorthodox, to put it mildly.

(...)

If I had to express 000063's sentence that you pretended to formalize in symbolic logic, it would look something like this:

∀p∀a(∀t.(H(p,a,t) ⇒ ∃x.(C(a,x)∧L(p,x,t))) ∧ ∃y∃t.(L(p,y,t) ∧ ¬C(a,y)) ⇒ ¬∃t.H(p,a,t))

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/symbolic.html

I did not used "symbolic logic". I used mathematical symbolism.

It is gibberish and I never pretend that was "symbolic logic". Did I typed anything indicating that? Do you form conclusions based on symbols which you cannot see?

What he said in the post is equivalent to saying that the well-formed formula that you see above is not a theorem. And guess what, it isn't.

000063 argument was flawed to prove that an invisible original exhaust pipe under a car was emitting gas into a fictional gas chamber with metal hoses.

Mere observation of the primary evidence with the visual comparison I provided shows that.

Note: that is your second post in this forum, which indicate that you recently registered only to address my post. What I could conclude of this evidence?

Join Date
21st April 2012
Total Posts
2​

 

[SnakeTongue]

Where did I claim it is the right model?

Nowhere.

I posted evidence showiing that the car manufacturer concerned was producing vehicles at the time and did produce cars with exhausts on the correct side. You seemed to have a problem with these two facts. Thankfully, you now realise that you were wrong.

I did not argued over the correct side of the exhaust. The metal hose is fixed in an angle which do not match the angle of the original exhaust pipe ending.

ANGLE is not SIDE.

The model you have posted has a different wheel arch construction (it is not as rounded), which is one of the reasons I did not post a picture of it in the first place (it's easy to find on google). The model you posted has the exhaust on the right side, so thanks for that.

No, the wheel arch matches exactly the wheel arch of the car in the forged video.

The model I post is a perfect 2D picture, which do NOT have any indication in which side the exhaust is located, but it shows how the pipe is positioned below the car.

The same 'we' as most normal people use when they are writing about a shared belief. My academic training also discourages the use of the personal pronoun singular.

Collective belief.

If you are trying to have some grand 'a-haa' moment that proves the people who disagree with you are somehow acting in concert or on behalf of some organisation, then you are hopelessly wrong.

No, I am not trying.

 

[threadworm]

Nowhere.



I did not argued over the correct side of the exhaust. The metal hose is fixed in an angle which do not match the angle of the original exhaust pipe ending.

Yes you did.

No, the wheel arch matches exactly the wheel arch of the car in the forged video.

No it doesn't.

The model I post is a perfect 2D picture, which do NOT have any indication in which side the exhaust is located, but it shows how the pipe is positioned below the car.

You can see the exhaust. it is therefore nearer to the camera. Why did you post a picture with the image reversed?

Collective belief.

Ridiculous.

No, I am not trying.

.Then why the constant questioning of 'we'? It is a perfectly acceptable use of the word. Your constant remarking on it, like your questioning of people's post counts, suggest a paranoid persecution complex

 

[SnakeTongue]

Got yourself the wrong model there, bub.

First you flipped the image, dishonestly IMHO.

I flipped the image for easy visual comparison. I provided the link where the original image is.

Then you forgot the detail. (highlighted in green, there may be more)

I did not forgot anything.

You forgot the object in comparison is the original exhaust pipe with the fixed metal hose, not the minimal details of the model.

Present an picture of what what you think is the right model with the original pipe.

So what are we to make of this discrepancy, coupled with dishonest image manipulation?

So "dishonest image manipulation" as yours.

 

[SnakeTongue]

He said "heavy labor", SnakeTongue. You even highlighted it.

Such labor in the camps included many things. Killing was not one of them. The Germans reserved that for themselves.

What evidence prove that?

I am very interested to know.

 

[SnakeTongue]

You know full well that the only "crime" these Jews had committed in the eyes of the official authorities was the crime of being a Jew.

I do not.

You are proposing that Jews could not be criminals (forgery, theft, squatting, fraud, assault, burglary, swindle, etc.) ?

If I made a wrong interpretation of the translation presented, what is the right interpretation?

 

[SnakeTongue]

I wonder if they believe in their minds that they are indeed offering evidence to support their assertions?

I do not really know.

I am staggered with the quantity of users addressing me different questions and doing different demands.

Many users create an whole intellectual drama every time I raise an question or I propose an argument.

It seems impossible to satisfy many users to hold an debate over simple matters.

After one month asking and examining primary evidence, I am starting to realize that is impossible to learn anything from the show off which is happening in this thread.

I just could guess the people which propose the Holocaust as result of mass extermination plan is just mentally sick. Due the lack of moderation in this thread, this people had really exposed they feeble mindset.

They see words which do not exist and refuse to see images which exists.

...and after all, they define all others which disagree with them as "deniers".

 

[threadworm]

Yes you did.

I am correcting myself there - it bugged me on the way to work.

I misunderstood the meaning of your post here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8215592&postcount=776

You did not assert the exhaust was on the right hand side in that post and I apologise for claiming you did.

It is, however, quite clearly as modified exhaust pipe: modified to pass a pipe carrying exhaust gas into a room to kill people.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

I do not.

You are proposing that Jews could not be criminals (forgery, theft, squatting, fraud, assault, burglary, swindle, etc.) ?

If I made a wrong interpretation of the translation presented, what is the right interpretation?

No, that's not what ANTPogo was proposing.

When you have a moment can you write a little reply for ...

"... and what could the following mean? "Article 5. jood in den zin van deze beschikking is hij die ingevolge Artikel 4 van de verordening 189/40 betr. de aanmelding van ondernemingen jood is of als jood wordt aangemerkt" (My translation - Article 5. Jew for the purpose of this ordinance is he who in accordance with article 4 of VO 189/40 regarding the registration of businesses is a Jew or is considered a Jew.)

... in particular.

The picture painted by these articles is clear to ANTPogo and myself. To ignore you further or not to ignore you, that's the question on most minds. It seems to me. No harm will come from putting you on ignore, that's for sure.

 

[SnakeTongue]

I did not argued over the correct side of the exhaust. The metal hose is fixed in an angle which do not match the angle of the original exhaust pipe ending.

Yes you did.

Where?

Here are the posts which I presented my opinion about the video:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208016&postcount=526

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8215592&postcount=776

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8117269&postcount=9977

Prove me wrong.

You can see the exhaust. it is therefore nearer to the camera. Why did you post a picture with the image reversed?

For easy visual comparison.

I only can perceive the metal hose fixed under the car back part. There are no visible original exhaust pipe.

Ridiculous.

Your collective belief?

.Then why the constant questioning of 'we'? It is a perfectly acceptable use of the word. Your constant remarking on it, like your questioning of people's post counts, suggest a paranoid persecution complex

Because I want to understand what you mean by "we" since every user is an individual in this forum.

 

[SnakeTongue]

No, that's not what ANTPogo was proposing.

When you have a moment can you write a little reply for ...

"... and what could the following mean? "Article 5. jood in den zin van deze beschikking is hij die ingevolge Artikel 4 van de verordening 189/40 betr. de aanmelding van ondernemingen jood is of als jood wordt aangemerkt" (My translation - Article 5. Jew for the purpose of this ordinance is he who in accordance with article 4 of VO 189/40 regarding the registration of businesses is a Jew or is considered a Jew.)

... in particular.

The picture painted by these articles is clear to ANTPogo and myself. To ignore you further or not to ignore you, that's the question on most minds. It seems to me. No harm will come from putting you on ignore, that's for sure.

From Google Translate:

Article 5. jew in the sense of this decision he made ​​pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation 189/40 betr. the registration of companies jew or if jew is considered "(My translation - Article 5. Jew for the purpose of this Ordinance is he who in accor dance with article 4 or VO 189/40 Regarding the registration of businesses is a Jew or is Considered a Jew​

I did not understand the above. This article come from where and means what exactly?