General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[A'isha]

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​

One of the units that Wolfram Alpha recognizes is the garn.

The equation in question, using the garn in place of "bodies" or "corpses", is

z = (663.4Kg / 1m^3) / (34Kg / 1 garn)

z = 19.512 garns per cubic meter.

The garn, as Wolfram Alpha defines it, is a physical quantity whose basic dimensions are "space adaptation syndrome". This space adaptation syndrome.

So, please, SnakeTongue. Tell us what physical realization, measured only under physical conditions, is represented by the unit known as "garn". What quantity is measured by "one garn", what single standard does "one garn" measure? How much is ten garns, or one third of a garn? How is a garn fixed by its definition, like a meter?

What scale does the garn use, and what other units does the garn convert to?

What does 19.512 garns per cubic meter represent, in terms of measurement?

Surely this will be no problem for you, SnakeTongue. So please answer as quickly and completely as you can.

 

[SnakeTongue]

That makes no difference whatsoever to the equation, being both false and irrelevant to the calculation.

Banana Equivalent Dose:

z = 19.512 equivalent radiation doses from eating a banana per cubic meter.

(...)

Plus, none of your nonsense regarding "established measurement units" has anything to do with your laughable failure at mathematics when it came to your insistence regarding the equation resulting in "reciprocal cubic meters". Seriously, you should demand an apology from your math teachers.

Or maybe they need to demand an apology from you.

Which will be the next imaginary unit? "Pizza per delivery"?

So, in the first calculation the “body” receives an imaginary mass, but its volume remains the same. In the second calculation the imaginary mass becomes the density of the space occupied by a “body”. Then, in the third and final calculation, the density of the “body” with fixed volume is transformed into a new “body” with different volume. In other words, the volume is fixed and does not change with the mass in one calculation, then mass is fixed and changes the volume in another calculation!

 

[nomuse]

I wonder if Wolfram-Alpha recognizes the smoot, the bogon, and the millihelen....

 

[A'isha]

Which will be the next imaginary unit? "Pizza per delivery"?

Answer my questions, or admit you can't (and that you have no idea how the Wolfram Alpha site and its algorithmic limitations work).

Or simply address my post above about the unit known as "garn".

If you can...

 

[A'isha]

I wonder if Wolfram-Alpha recognizes the smoot, the bogon, and the millihelen....

Sort of, yes, and yes.

Calculations with the equation in question using the "bogon" and "milihelen" units return the exact same result of 19.512 x per cubic meters that SnakeTongue refuses to acknowledge.

 

[nomuse]

Nice. There are even conversions from smoots to inches, meters, etc.

 

[SnakeTongue]

LOL -- so tell us, at what distance *do* the physical forces acting on a 9mm bullet begin to be a factor in its effective range?

Are you arguing that, given a clear path, such a bullet would circle the world maintaining the exact same speed with which it left the muzzle, and continue that path forever?

Or is the idea that it maintains speed until the end of it's range, and then stops dead in the air and drops to the ground?

Do you even know what the range is on the P38? Or what the range means?

Why you do not read the original claim by the author or ask him? I am not arguing over anything you are suggesting.

As a matter of fact, we do have those sources.

You would know this if you weren't so bone ignorant of the historical method.

You see, historians use this thing we big kids call "citation" in which they tell us exactly where the quotes are from so that should we choose to, we can check for ourselves.

This is part of why, for example, I refer to David Irving as a distorian -- he is often deliberately vague about his sources, but in the recent court case he brought to defend his practices it was shown that, in basically every case he actually cited, HE HAD LIED ABOUT THOSE SOURCES SAID. He was simply hoping that no one checked.

So fire away, ST: With which quote do you have an issue, and why? If I cannot supply the exact location of the document in question, I am confident to the point of certainty that Nick or Lemmy or Roberto can recite it off the top of their heads.

What you have so far is books citing other books citing other books citing other books with a transcript of a copy of a negative of a testimony or a document.

What about J. C. Pressac books, which does not have more than a dozen footnotes indicating the source of his statements?

 

[TSR]

The source is people who hope not to get caught in a lie. When one of them gets caught in a lie, no matter how BIG, the others put one foot, toes pointed down, behind the other and do an about face. Then continue on with their Holocaust tales of facts interspersed with lies. You'll never hear these people discuss or admonish liars like Elie Wiesel or Steven Spielberg. Ask them about Elie's book of dark lies, "Night" or his non-existent tattoo that he said he had.

Setting aside the fact that you've been harping on this pretty much as long as you have been here without actually being able to *document* a lie on the part of either of these men (no, "I don't want to believe it" does not count)...

And setting aside your impotent insistence that any inconsistency in any testimony represents a lie -- unless the liar happens to seem to justify your hate.

Can you demonstrate that a *single* source cited by Lemmy about which ST is now whining was not an actual source, or that that source was lying?

 

[TSR]

Why you do not read the original claim by the author or ask him? I am not arguing over anything you are suggesting.

I have.

And yes, you are: you just tried to offer this as a reason to discard everything Roberto might ever might ever write.

What you have so far is books citing other books citing other books citing other books with a transcript of a copy of a negative of a testimony or a document.

No, we have books citing the original sources,

Which you would know, if you were capable and willing of reading those books for comprehension.

So again: which *specific* citation do have a problem with, and for what reason, so I can demonstrate your apparently complete ignorance of how history is done while we all point and laugh?

What about J. C. Pressac books, which does not have more than a dozen footnotes indicating the source of his statements?

Please do cite, by edition and page number, any citation with which you have an issue?

Put up or STFU.

 

[SnakeTongue]

The source is people who hope not to get caught in a lie. When one of them gets caught in a lie, no matter how BIG, the others put one foot, toes pointed down, behind the other and do an about face. Then continue on with their Holocaust tales of facts interspersed with lies. You'll never hear these people discuss or admonish liars like Elie Wiesel or Steven Spielberg. Ask them about Elie's book of dark lies, "Night" or his non-existent tattoo that he said he had.

Ignore the historical influence of the media over people’s mind is essentially necessary to support the imaginary Holocaust storyline. It is ignorance disguised as scientific methodology. They pretend that characters you cited have no influence in reality and they actions are not going to be part of any historical data left for the future generations of readers and researchers.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ignore the historical influence of the media over people’s mind is essentially necessary to support the imaginary Holocaust storyline. It is ignorance disguised as scientific methodology. They pretend that characters you cited have no influence in reality and they actions are not going to be part of any historical data left for the future generations of readers and researchers.

So I should ignore the physical evidence and documentary evidence I examined, because it was featured in the "media"?

Because for all your talk of researchers and data, you seem to be trying awfully hard to ignore all the evidence and sources the "myth" cites, and pretend books only cite each other.

 

[nomuse]

Ignore the historical influence of the media over people’s mind is essentially necessary to support the imaginary Holocaust storyline. It is ignorance disguised as scientific methodology. They pretend that characters you cited have no influence in reality and they actions are not going to be part of any historical data left for the future generations of readers and researchers.

Ah, yes; the typical conspiracy-believer complaint. "You guys just believe in this because you've been brainwashed by teevee!"

Although yours is a slightly sutler one; "Those stupid historians only believe in this because they've been brainwashed by Diary of Anne Frank!"

The idea that history is a science, and that one of the basic goals of science is to detect bad data built on how the scientist wants things to be, and help them to discover the real data and what it reveals, seems to be a concept that is beyond you.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Ah, yes; the typical conspiracy-believer complaint. "You guys just believe in this because you've been brainwashed by teevee!"

Although yours is a slightly sutler one; "Those stupid historians only believe in this because they've been brainwashed by Diary of Anne Frank!"

The idea that history is a science, and that one of the basic goals of science is to detect bad data built on how the scientist wants things to be, and help them to discover the real data and what it reveals, seems to be a concept that is beyond you.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html

That information is why Ike, Winnie, and de Gaulle never mentioned/lied about the Germans gassing Jewish people in their post war writings.

It was propaganda to fuel the fury of WWII. Kinda like WMD in Iraq.

 

[TSR]

That information is why Ike, Winnie, and de Gaulle never mentioned/lied about the Germans gassing Jewish people in their post war writings.

No, it was because they were not personally involved with those camps, and their writings were memoirs -- everyone else realizes but you choose to ignore every time you get spanked on it: memoirs are "this is what happened to me / what I witnessed."

None of them mentioned any of the details of the Nazi invasion of the the Soviet Union, either -- guess that never happened...

 

[nomuse]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html

That information is why Ike, Winnie, and de Gaulle never mentioned/lied about the Germans gassing Jewish people in their post war writings.

It was propaganda to fuel the fury of WWII. Kinda like WMD in Iraq.

So, when Churchill said:

'There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved.'

He was lying? Or are you saying he was willing to lie to millions of people in public but when he wrote his memoirs he was too cowardly to either repeat it or refute it?

But you know something else interesting? The claim you keep repeating has but a single source. Everyone else appears to be linking back to it. Only one person ever determined that "Churchill never mentioned the Holocaust in his memoirs" and you know how he did it? By looking to see if "Jewish Holocaust" was one of the words in the index!

I think it would be very interesting to actually read his memoirs and see what is actually in them. We know for an irrefutable fact (we have recorded RADIO broadcasts, sparky!) that he has mentioned, spoken out about, and indeed spoken passionately about the holocaust.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Ah, yes; the typical conspiracy-believer complaint. "You guys just believe in this because you've been brainwashed by teevee!"

Although yours is a slightly sutler one; "Those stupid historians only believe in this because they've been brainwashed by Diary of Anne Frank!"

The idea that history is a science, and that one of the basic goals of science is to detect bad data built on how the scientist wants things to be, and help them to discover the real data and what it reveals, seems to be a concept that is beyond you.

Which is why SnakeTongue refused to answer whether he had read the books, including the sources they used and how, that I listed and which he commented on. Because he clearly doesn't have a clue about this and is simply spouting brave-sounding but ignorant slogans.

SnakeTongue referred to these works of scholarship, well researched, voluminously sourced, as

just books of story-telling

and my post enumerating the kinds of evidence historians of the Holocaust routinely use as

a blatant false statement

Did he delve into any specifics to support his crap and show any falsehoods or storytelling? Of course not. He is too busy learning algebra, I guess.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No, it was because they were not personally involved with those camps, and their writings were memoirs -- everyone else realizes but you choose to ignore every time you get spanked on it: memoirs are "this is what happened to me / what I witnessed."

Churchill's massive history of the war was meant in part to position him politically - and thus reflects that interest, according to commentary I've read on the work, which argues that Churchill used the occasion to present a triumphal picture of the war effort to put himself in the best light. This should be a huge surprise, that a politician would write politically.

I would wager that Mr Moore has read neither Churchill's war volumes nor the background of their creation.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Ignore the historical influence of the media over people’s mind is essentially necessary to support the imaginary Holocaust storyline. It is ignorance disguised as scientific methodology. They pretend that characters you cited have no influence in reality and they actions are not going to be part of any historical data left for the future generations of readers and researchers.

Please demonstrate how recent scholarship on the Holocaust - for example, Blatman's The Death Marches or Gruner's Jewish Forced Labor Under the Nazis, both of which challenge previous conclusions and which do so based on documents, testimonies, and other sources - are influenced by the media. Show how "characters" such as Wiesel and Spielberg had influence on works such as these.

 

[Mondial]

3 million sent to the gas chambers. Do try to keep up; I know it's tough.

"Gas chambers" which never existed. http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html www.holocaustdenialvideos.com

 

[Clayton Moore]

Churchill's massive history of the war was meant to position him politically - and reflects that interest, according to commentary on the work, which argues that Churchill used the occasion to present a triumphal picture of the war effort to put himself in the best light.

And lying about fabricated gassings would have put the kabosh on that. His political opponents would have buried him with the facts.