• 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.

General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
At least I have the satisfaction of the high road. I know that the German people were not on a Final Solution mission to exterminate the Jewish people of Europe.

Are you saying that the Germans were not involved in the final solution? Or, do you mean there were no Germans in the German army?

This final solution was most definitely designed and perperated by Germans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference.

I know we discussed the Wannsee Conference about a month ago, but some people seem to have forgotten.
 
Why do you engage with these insane Holocaust 'deniers'? Rational people understand the truth about the Holocaust, despite what 'deniers' would like to believe. Engaging in debate with them gives them a sort of validity that they don't deserve.
 
It is kind of nice and unsettling at the same time to see CM claiming he is on the High road, the high road of intellectual ignorance driven oblivion
 
And yet no documentation can be provided to show the IRC ever said there was no holocaust.
Individuals from the organisation stated there definately was a holocaust.
Rense is NOT the IRC.

Will Clayton ever cite the IRC making this claim? Or will he assume that if he says something often enough it will be accepted?
 
sarcasm

Wow, another "Ike Winnie and Charles failed to mention the alleged homicidal gas chambers." Holocaust.

Only seen in the field as an "argument" at JREF for the hundredth time now!

Hey, that sure convinces little old me.

With that and them steam chambers...I guess that just about wraps it up for the Holocaust and the evil Nazis. etc.

You can all stop debating now!

Clayton Moore "the possibly all knowing and probably all believing" has sorted it all out for us.

/sarcasm
 
Last edited:
I notice Clayton was careful enough this time to limit it to mention of "the gas chambers." So if Winston Churchill wrote about deportations, concentration camps, and even mass killings, Clayton would still be right because he hadn't used the "G" word.

It's a tactic I've seen all too frequently from creationists and others.
 
The brave, unarmed, neutral IRC stated there was no genocide by Germany.

I'll believe them before I'd believe the absurd tales of atrocities quoted on this thread.
In his new Preface for the 1988 edition of his book, first published in 1954, E.A. Cohen wrote:
"As a rule the transports were an emotional affair because relatives, friends and acquaintances would be leaving and we did not know what was in store for them. But after their departure I took a shower, went to bed for a rest, and in the evening went to a cabaret performance and amused myself. I admit that I had forgotten the train with the Jews on their way to an unknown destination. I was glad that it had not been my turn, and for some days I forgot the deportation train. I trusted entirely to my function in Westerbork, thinking that I was absolutely safe. This feeling of safety lulled me to sleep; I did my work as a doctor and transports were for others, not for me.
Until the moment came that I too had to get on the train with my family, calmly. Yes, calmly indeed, because (and I have to emphasize this fact), I did not know what lay beyond Westerbork. When I learned the truth in Auschwitz, and knew that my wife and my little son of four had been gassed, and my reaction was not one of grief, or despair, or there being any reason for me to carry on any more, No, on the contrary, I fought for my life. I wanted to survive, and I went as far as assisting the German camp doctor with the selections. It is an experience I described in a book I later wrote, The Abyss: A Confession. I know that it was a choice between life and death, and I chose life.
But now, many years later, free from danger, I realize that I did dirty work for the SS. The price was too high. I besmeared my conscience: I should have drawn the line at my willingness to collaborate. I think that I went across that line. On the other hand, I should not forget that I was able to help many inmates because of my position, and I did so. But knowing all this now, I am not sure if I would act differently in the same circumstances.
It is curious that I suffer from guilt about things I have done under unimaginable conditions, while the perpetrators, the criminal S.S., the murderers of the Jews, don't have these feelings of guilt. They explain their misdeeds by saying that they only did their duty; they had to carry out their superiors' orders and show unconditional obedience. Responsibility lay with the men who gave the orders, not with them. And therefore they were not guilty.
From the Netherlands about 60,000 Jews were deported to Auschwitz; 1052 survived and I am one of them. In Groningen, my place of birth, there lived 2,842 Jews at the beginning of the war; 2,550 of them were deported to Poland. Only 10 returned and I was one of them."
Human Behavior in the Concentration Camp, Preface 1988 p. xix.
Besides a new Foreword and Preface, are there any other changes between the English editions of his book? Is 1988 the new Holocaust, Clayton Moore?

Prior to the date of first publication people like Dr. Cohen had already received letters from the Dutch Red Cross informing them that their relatives, friends and acquaintances had died. "[...], in or in the vicinity of Auschwitz, as a result of sickness, exhaustion or gassing" and "[...], in or in the vicinity of Auschwitz, died as a result of gas asphyxiation" were phrases used by the Red Cross at the time in such letters. Note how the Red Cross explicitly mentioned gassing among the causes of death.

"[...], in of in de omgeving van Auschwitz aan de gevolgen van ziekte, uitputting of vergassing is overleden."
"[...], in of in de omgeving van Auschwitz aan de gevolgen van gasverstikking is overleden."

Why would the Red Cross send out such letters in the second half of the 1940s and first half of the 1950s if there had been no genocide, as you claim? When did the Red Cross supposedly switch sides? Does the fact that such letters were in fact sent out persuade you to believe the Red Cross then, Clayton Moore? If not, why not?
 
The following journal excerpts strike me as germane to a topic we've tried to discuss, without much success, owing to the "nah nah nah" coming from the deniers.

These passages interest me in what they show about how Jewish inmates in labor camps, subject to murderous selections, reasoned about their responses to the Nazis. The text below comes from Arnold Daghani's journal, The Grave Is in the Cherry Orchard, which was drafted whilst Daghani was a slave laborer on the Durchgangsstrasse-IV and held in Mikhailowka labor camp near Gaisin in Ukraine.

First passage, illustrating Daghani's stunned and confused reaction to the conditions (as well as the differing roles of Germans, here as seen in the official pov of a German business concern, in the alliance held together for carrying out the genocide):
Their desire that everything should go forward as efficiently as possible became evident in a conversation I had one day with a T.O. [Organization Todt] camp-fuhrer, Karl Ulrich. He asked me if I had not been wondering over the fact that for a long time past executions had ceased to take place at the actual working-plot. In fact, I had not given it a thought; the decrees of those who owned our lives were too unfathomable for any of us to question them, even in our minds. The T.O. man, however, insisted in offering his own explanation. The company, August Dohrmann Arbeitsgemeinschaft, had protested against any execution taking place on the working plot on the grounds that it would have an unfavourable effect on the fellow workers of those shot dead. The manager, therefore, expressed his opinion that any 'purge' carried out well away from the highway would have a far less depressing effect on our zest for work.

But, who among us was still so susceptible to outside impressions? [undated, p. 18]
Frank conversations of this sort, I have to say, between captors and inmates were also recorded in Kovno ghetto and other places. Unlike our weaseling deniers, the Germans and Lithuanians involved in the genocide were sometimes at least frank about what they were doing, to the point of describing operations to their victims in certain settings.

After discussing the failed suicide attempt of a man, later shot dead by a guard, on the order of deputy camp commandant, Walter Mintel, Daghani made an entry on 12 October 1942, describing a case of resistance:
From the returning convoy I learn that Misha, an Ukrainian Jew, was executed by [Lithuanian guard] Wisotzkas right on the plot. Misha, a strong young man, was said to have been ordered by Wisotzkas to follow [usually an indication of an impending execution], but he succeeded in snatching the gun away from the latter, and to fire at once. The Lithuanian was slightly wounded. Meanwhile another guard took aim at Misha who fell on the ground relaxing the grasp that was holding the gun. Wisotzkas seized the gun eagerly and pulled the trigger. [p. 40]


And, finally, on 29 October, inmates at Mikhailowka had a conversation in the evening after work, when they were back in the stables where they slept, concerning rumors about Stalingrad. The conversation parallels in many ways Primo Levi's conclusions about the effect of Auschwitz on its prisoners. It shows too the sharp divergence among inmates' responses (from romantic hopes to bitter shame due to their impotence, from selfish survival instincts to bludgeoned resignation) as well as the impossible situation they faced even in a relatively obscure labor camp playing its minor part in the genocide:
"And what, if they have taken Stalingrad?" a weary woman's voice asked. "To tell the truth, I'm fed up. It's no purpose, to cherish any hope. Suppose, the Soviets do hold the line and drive them back. So what of it? Do you really think they'll be in time to liberate us of all people? I very much doubt it."

"You're wrong here, madame [earlier Daghani had described the inmates' usage of sir and madame in their conversations as having an insane quality]," a male voice interrupted eagerly. "Quite wrong. It's not our lives that count, it's the deliverance of mankind. But, if we were delivered, suppose we survived, wouldn't I have the joy of my life taking vengeance on Mintel, Kiesel, Zelinskas, and on those of the Dohrmann Company? I certainly would."

"Here you are, Poldi," Dr. Seidner said derisively. "Alright, you lifted your own grandmother and placed her on the cart [an execution which Daghani described, in order that the young man's grandmother wouldn't be beaten as she was taken to be shot]. That was really decent of you! But why didn't you kill the Lithuanian? And now I notice you have left Wisotzkas's name out, he who murdered your grandmother. This lapse might mean a lot to psychologists, you know? Well, don't interrupt me, please. Look at me. Wasn't I thankful the other day when Serskus, the murderer of my father, held out a cigarette to me? What is dignity, young man? You're talking of vengeance. Nonsense! I don't see any of us taking revenge; besides, I don't believe in it. Perhaps justice. But, what is the use of talking? Mind you, we're in for it." [p. 44]

(Apologies for interrupting the fascinating inquiry into Mr Moore's modus operandi with this . . . )
 
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto

Despite the grave hardships, life in the Warsaw Ghetto was rich with educational and cultural activities, conducted by its underground organizations. Hospitals, public soup kitchens, orphanages, refugee centers and recreation facilities were formed, as well as a school system. Some schools were illegal and operated under the guise of a soup kitchen. There were secret libraries, classes for the children and even a symphony orchestra.

In their continual recitation of logical fallacies, one of the deniers' favorites is "Begging the Question." It's the coward's way out of making a claim they might have to support with actual facts and evidence.

For example, above we see an random laundry list of things Warsaw Jews created in secret to survive while in the Ghetto. The denier would like to paint this bland list as "comforts" and somehow evidence the Jews were not deprived while forcibly segregated, etc...

The problem arises (as usual) when the denier's POV encounters reality. In denier world, "hospital" means a large white building staffed with doctors, nurses and filled with medicine and equipment. In reality world "hospital" describes a warehouse or other unoccupied, unheated building where the trapped Jews collected their sick and dying.

Other generic descriptions are given similar exaggerated meaning by the deniers. It's a trait deniers share with many other of their CT brethren. Describe the crash of rubble as an "explosion" and the CT sees controlled demolitions. Describe a flash in the sky as "moving faster than I could imagine" and the CT sees a UFO. It's all the same.
 
You know, it's kind of funny how the denier posted the paragraph about infrastructure but neglected to post the two paragraphs preceding it.

During the next year and a half, thousands of Polish Jews as well as some Romani people from smaller cities and the countryside were brought into the Ghetto, while diseases (especially typhus), and starvation kept the inhabitants at about the same number. Average food rations in 1941 for Jews in Warsaw were limited to 184 calories, compared to 699 calories for gentile Poles and 2,613 calories for Germans.

Unemployment was a major problem in the ghetto. Illegal workshops were created to manufacture goods to be sold illegally on the outside and raw goods were smuggled in, often by children. Hundreds of four to five year old Jewish children went across en masse to the "Aryan side," sometimes several times a day, smuggling food into the ghettos, returning with goods that often weighed more than they did. Smuggling was often the only source of subsistence for Ghetto inhabitants, who would otherwise have died of starvation.

Funny that was left out...
 
After compression (by weight and soil) and partial decomposition, they are close enough. We aren't playing Tetris here.

Which “compression” are you referring to? Where is the formula or method which proves your assertion?

ANY properly-defined unit is a measurement. I can give you a currency value in number of pennies. I can give you a crate size in number of medium Braeburns. I can give you a speed in smoots per weekend.

You can, but I do not want it over properly established scientific methods. Body per cubic meter it is not a unit for calculations:

In physics and metrology, units are standards for measurement of physical quantities that need clear definitions to be useful.

(...)

For most quantities a unit is absolutely necessary to communicate values of that physical quantity. For example, conveying to someone a particular length without using some sort of unit is impossible, because a length cannot be described without a reference used to make sense of the value given.

(...)

A distinction should be made between units and standards. A unit is fixed by its definition, and is independent of physical conditions such as temperature. By contrast, a standard is a physical realization of a unit, and realizes that unit only under certain physical conditions. For example, the metre is a unit, while a metal bar is a standard. One metre is the same length regardless of temperature, but a metal bar will be one metre long only at a certain temperature.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement

If you have admitted the volume of the body per cubic meter is affected by “compression (by weight and soil)”, then you cannot determine that body per cubic meter is a unit because “unit is fixed by its definition, and is independent of physical conditions”.

In these calculations, bodies per m^3 is a derived value. It is a useful figure for comparison or for further calculation. Only those who can not understand algebraic manipulation should have trouble with it.

Wrong...

No exact results found for algebriac in the dictionary.

Did you mean algebra?

Did you mean algebras?

Did you mean algebraic?

Did you mean algebraical?

Did you mean algebraist?

Did you mean algebraists?

Did you mean algebraically?

Did you mean afebrile?

Did you mean amnesiac?

Did you mean theriac?


http://oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/?region=us&q=algebriac+

This is not only a matter of “algebraic”, but also of physics:

The volume of a solid (whether regularly or irregularly shaped) can be determined by fluid displacement. Displacement of liquid can also be used to determine the volume of a gas. The combined volume of two substances is usually greater than the volume of one of the substances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume

An empty bath is filled with 100 buckets of water each holding 10 liters. The level reached by the water is traced inside the bath with a colour pencil. The bath is emptied and a body of 50Kg is placed inside. Then the bath is filled again with buckets of water. When the water reaches the coloured mark, it is verified that was only necessary to use x buckets to fill the bath. How much is the bath volume capacity in body per cubic meter? How many buckets of 10 liters are necessary to fill the bath with the body inside?

Since you insist body volume is proportional to mass variation, then you can answer the above questions. If you know how many liters is equivalent to a body per cubic meter, it is possible to obtain the volume of 50Kg body.

It is a unique opportunity to you show “who can not understand algebraic manipulation” how appropriate is this unusual standard which you denoted as “bodies per m^3 is a derived value”:

(...) Using physical laws, units of quantities can be expressed as combinations of units of other quantities. Thus only a small set of units is required. These units are taken as the base units. Other units are derived units. Derived units are a matter of convenience, as they can be expressed in terms of basic units. (...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement

Body per cubic meter is not a derived unit since it cannot be expressed in terms of any basic unit.
 
( not ) Originally Posted by nomuse
Only those who can not understand algebraic manipulation should have trouble with it.

No exact results found for algebriac in the dictionary.

Did you mean algebraic?
One has to wonder why, after having edited a quote with a obvious typo to correct it, you then go on to question what was meant when you obviously knew ( or else you would not have edited it )

Such is the state of the art in Holocaust denial...
 
Oddly, I don't think that "bodies per cubic metre" is all that difficult a unit of measurement to understand. Why do you have an issue with it?
 
No, genius, I refuted Mattogno's conclusions applying a) his own calculation method and b) assumptions regarding average weights that, unlike his, were realistic.

See above.

Mattogno's method was good enough for me, but your method may turn out more precise results - if one doesn't make the hilarious mistake you made, that is.

See above.

So, first you admitted the method is not yours, but then you proceed to admit the method “was good enough” for you. This is an explicit admission of plagiarism. You did not present any method from yourself to explain why Carlo Mattogno's method was wrong. You just copied his method and presented it as your “realistic” method.

Now you are even suggesting that my “method may turn out more precise results”, which only indicates you are going to proceed exactly as you did with Carlo Mattogno's method. You are going to admit that my method is right, but I used it wrong.

(...) And I strongly doubt that every underweight person (whether due to anorexia or to malnourishment brought on by circumstances) looks as bad as the skeleton on your photograph. That must be an extreme case of anorexia, close to or below the lower limit of underweight according to the BMI table, which is 38 kg.
If you doubt it, than it is up to you present the evidence which proves my evidence is wrong.

(...) What it doesn't tell us, unless I missed something, is that the subjects were so weak that they couldn't move without external help, as you claimed earlier.
You failed to present a single picture where semi-starved people of 1.60m and 43Kg are being forced to march down a street.

You may call the method rudimentary, but caling it "deceitful" suggests your self-projecting paranoia. Besides, it was the method applied by your guru Mattogno. If you want to call Mattogno deceitful, be my guest.

(...)

If I ignored a "scientific established method" (which would that be?), so did your guru Mattogno. I only followed his reasoning.

I did not read any article or book from Carlo Mattogno.

Moreover, if you think Carlo Mattogno’s method is “rudimentary”, why did you use it?

What "imaginary mass value"?
I guess you mean this:

---

I'm not sure what the poet is trying to tell me here, but I guess he's referring to this calculation:

The reasoning of this is simple: if 663.40 kg of body weight corresponding to 10.7 corpses with a weight of at least 62 kg (actually I should have used 66 kg and thus obtained a higher total weight, as Bay's model was for a male body, so the 663.40 kg are conservative) fit into one cubic meter of grave space, then 663.40 kg of body weight corresponding to 19.51 people with a weight of 34 kg fit into the same amount of grave space.
AGAIN: Body per cubic meter is not a measurement! Density of Kg per cubic meter divided per mass does not result in body per cubic meter, but in inverse volume:

v^-1 = 663.40Kg/m^3 / 34Kg

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=663.40Kg%2Fm^3%2F34Kg

Reciprocal length or inverse length is a measurement used in several branches of science and mathematics. As the reciprocal of length, common units used for this measurement include the reciprocal metre or inverse metre (m−1), the reciprocal centimetre or inverse centimetre (cm−1), and, in optics, the dioptre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_length

I don't know what exactly you mean by a "better assumption", but I have no problem using your calculation method instead of the more rudimentary method underlying my above-mentioned results. Without, of course, making the stupid mistake you made.

Kindly spare me and our readers the patronizing blather, and if you're now arguing that your original formula was inappopriate, please say so loud and clear instead of trying to blame me for the supposed inadequacy of your original calculations, which I merely reproduced in an Excel sheet. The following is from this thread's post 1792, written by you:

Your calculation method was not bad in principle, but you messed up badly in one respect, and that makes your calculation results worthless. I'll explain:
Things looked even more odd when I reproduced your very own calculations on an Excel spreadsheet:

This, of course, means that your calculations are deeply flawed, to put it politely.

Now, why is that your formula leads to such obviously mistaken results? Where did your mess up?

(...)

Your calculations for the hypothetical test group should have been based on a box smaller than Provan's box in the same proportion that the weight of the hypothetical text group is smaller than that of Provan's test group:
0.44 m³ x 209÷266 = 0.345714 m³

(...)

That would have been the correct calculation.
You could also have made things easier for yourself by simply considering the following:

This is complete nonsense.

You cannot even write down basic mathematical formulations and you pretend that my formula is "deeply flawed"... Fail.

From where does the “box smaller” come from? There is no such experiment with such results. You are applying unknown values to my formula.

Mathematics extend (a graph, curve, or range of values) by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data:
(as adjective extrapolated)
a set of extrapolated values


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/extrapolate?region=us&q=extrapolate

I am not going to discuss mass grave capacity with you anymore. It has become obvious you cannot refute my mathematical methodology with essential evidence. So you only can resort to proceed as you have previously proceeded with Carlo Mattogno's method: you admitted that my method is correct, but only in your imaginary terms without presenting any method of your own.

You fail.

 
Last edited:
If you doubt it, than it is up to you present the evidence which proves my evidence is wrong.
Sounds like someone needs to work on the fundamentals of logic. You presented the photograph, you should be able to defend it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom