General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nick Terry said:
1. You have been repeatedly given a link to refutations of the 'One Third of the Holocaust' videos, which appeared on Holocaust Controversies.

2. One of the authors of those refutations is Roberto Muehlenkamp, who has posted on this very thread as Robert Muehlenkamp (losing the 'o' because of a problem registering). So he is protected by the MA in case you are thinking of being rude about him.

3. The maker of the 'One Third of the Holocaust' videos is known as denierbud, that was his own handle on YouTube. He is also known as 'Mike Smith', a pseudonym, and has been recently interviewed by denier websites as Dean Irrebod, a clear variant on denierbud.

4. 'denierbud' turned up here as 'budly' to tout his videos, which led to one of the more classic threads in JREF history:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151218
the thread was classic because by the end, denierbud/budly had totally destroyed his credibility.

All these facts are considered common knowledge among readers of this thread and several are also common knowledge among readers of CODOH forum, who would know perfectly well who Roberto Muehlenkamp and denierbud are.
Click to expand...

??

I see the thread was closed with no reason given and that Budly hasn't been banned.
It seems Team Holocaust did not abide by the OP. It seems the thread devolved into one big thread disruption by Team Holocaust.
 
I don't think Dr Terry understands how things work here: Deniers spam links to seriously bereft online vidz or post laborious and repetitive handwaving; all others are under an obligation to watch vidz - 9, 10, 11, however many hours, when posted, no matter whether they've seen them before and to memorize generalized blether emanating from denier-posters - whilst deniers are under no obligations whatsoever, not to post honestly, not to read links relevant to spammed vidz, not to reply when uncomfortable points are raised, not to offer explanations, not to use sources. Corollary: all posts by non-deniers, no matter what they argue, are considered word salads, irrelevant, and verbose buzzwording, excusing deniers from having to deal with information in these posts or correct their own misstatements when pointed out.
 
LemmyCaution said:
I don't think Dr Terry understands how things work here: Deniers spam links to seriously bereft online vidz or post laborious and repetitive handwaving; all others are under an obligation to watch vidz - 9, 10, 11, however many hours, when posted, no matter whether they've seen them before and to memorize generalized blether emanating from denier-posters - whilst deniers are under no obligations whatsoever, not to post honestly, not to read links relevant to spammed vidz, not to reply when uncomfortable points are raised, not to offer explanations, not to use sources. Corollary: all posts by non-deniers, no matter what they argue, are considered word salads, irrelevant, and verbose buzzwording, excusing deniers from having to deal with information in these posts or correct their own misstatements when pointed out.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if denier had to post honestly, to reply to uncomfortable points that are raise, to offer explanations or use source, they´d each last maybe 30 posts or so.
 
Nick Terry said:
[...]
Legally, such a missing persons case translates into a declaration of death after a few years. Those 'missing' are legally dead. Indeed, bluespaceoddity has repeatedly pointed out that the Dutch Red Cross certified deportees to Sobibor as dead in missing-persons enquiries after the war.
[...]
2) provide any evidence of 'hoaxing' (to use a shorthand)
[...]
We can of course shift to #2 if you'd like. You'll be squirming and dodging on that one, too, in no time.
Click to expand...
Oh that's just nasty. You are doing it on purpose.

Well ... We can retrace the deliberations through recorded proposals and subsequent amendments that formalized the procedures into law. We can read some select contemporary public reactions by using no other tool than Google - Or ... we could - if Dogzilla were interested to begin with and were not faced with that insurmountable language barrier, if we even attempted to reconstruct such a thing. Easier if we just play along and pretend none of that exists or matters. Like the people it no longer affected.

http://resourcessgd.kb.nl/SGD/19461947/PDF/SGD_19461947_0001480.pdf
Could be a first attempt, a proposal in a message to the Tweede Kamer, June 1947, what would eventually become the 'Wet, houdende voorzieningen betreffende het opmaken van akten van overlijden van vermisten' enacted 2 June, 1949

De nieuwe wet op overlijdensakten, Het Nieuw Israelietisch Weekblad, 22 Juli 1949, page 4 - contains an attempt to explain it to their readers.
http://resources3.kb.nl/010870000/pdf/DDD_010873508.pdf

What foresight of these hoaxers to have a national government pretend through nearly 2 years of parliamentary sessions between 1947 and 1949 that there wasn't already clarity on the fate of 6 million Jews by 1919. Did I misunderstand that?

How cleverly the local Jewish remnant played along pretending not to understand the implications of the deliberations or the clauses of the eventual law devised to settle their affairs. Did I misinterpret that?

How deviously clever to have the insurance companies play along by pretending not to honor life insurance policies and contesting claims through the courts in the mean time. How utterly diabolical to have some survivors mired in bureaucratic procedure and maddening minutiae for decades afterwards. Surely, I must have made that up.

Better leave all this unstated. You were only repeating those bits because you already knew that the hoaxers anticipated, this JREF thread and Dogzilla's participation in it, no later than 1946. Probably much earlier. Not fair to plan that far ahead and then have no one with whom to share all these wonderful forgeries and play acts.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
??

I see the thread was closed with no reason given and that Budly hasn't been banned.
Click to expand...

The thread was closed at the same time as all other Holocaust denial-related threads were closed, to channel all discussion into the 'General Holocaust Denial Discussion Thread'. You could probably have guessed that but no, there must be a sinister explanation.

It seems Team Holocaust did not abide by the OP. It seems the thread devolved into one big thread disruption by Team Holocaust.
Click to expand...

LOL, "did not abide by the OP", the OP was one of the silliest attempts to try and dictate how a discussion should go in JREF history. That thread is absolutely legendary for precisely this reason.

Note also how within a matter of a few posts, members were confronting 'budly' with the refutations of the videos from Holocaust Controversies, which caused all kinds of squirming from 'budly'. No doubt you'll not bother to read the refutations, either, but maybe now you might have an idea of why it is that you can spam the links to those videos as much as you like, you'll only get other links spammed back.
 
Clayton Moore said:
??

I see the thread was closed with no reason given and that Budly hasn't been banned.
It seems Team Holocaust did not abide by the OP. It seems the thread devolved into one big thread disruption by Team Holocaust.
Click to expand...

Translation: "Phew! I spotted something I think is wrong in his post. I guess that means I don't to familiarise myself with the evidence presented."
 
Cyrix686 said:
I don't think anybody said that he had been banned Mr. Moore. Where did you get that idea from? I rather imagine the thread was probably closed because there is only one active denial thread. The one you are reading. There is also the gaswagen thread.

In looking for more Dubly I did find this open thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151984
Click to expand...

I wouldn't advise anyone to respond in the thread above but as Charles Traynor and Mr. Moore think so highly of ole Budley, perhaps they would care to invite him back? We could do with another laugh.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
??

I see the thread was closed with no reason given and that Budly hasn't been banned.
It seems Team Holocaust did not abide by the OP. It seems the thread devolved into one big thread disruption by Team Holocaust.
Click to expand...

You mean his entirely arbitrary rules which only served to bias the debate in his favor? He got spanked before the end of the first page. Ironic that his approach is the direct opposite of yours; while he goes "talk about specific things in a specific video", while you just keep spamming links to the video and demand debunkers address it, then repeatedly ignore the link to the debunking that's already been done.
 
Of course Clayton ignores it. Looking at it would challenge his preconceptions and his world view.

I feel sorry for him.
 
000063 said:
Only when I read your posts. Oh, and Clay's. Perhaps you should get some new tactics.
Click to expand...

How about you learn some new logical fallacies that you can attach to facts you don't like?

I need evidence of the Russians' motivations for their actions, which was the foundation of that section of your post. All you're doing is speculating on decisions made by men who are likely dead, in a hypothetical scenario, with no evidence whatsoever. You can't just make up stuff based on what we know and expect it to be taken as gospel.
Click to expand...

And now you're just spinning nonsense from nothing. Where are you getting Russian motivations? You asked me for evidence that photographs at Belsen showed skinny people or lots of dead bodies. There's a certain base knowledge people need to have to participate in these discussions. Knowing what somebody means when they say the Bulldozing Bodies of Belsen is one of those pieces of basic knowledge. How about you prove to me there's a photograph of US soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima?


Once again; what you, personally, "believe" ain't worth crap. Skepticism requires evidence. Provide it, seek it, or be quiet.
Click to expand...

You believe that holocaust denial is a conspiracy to rehabilitate Naziism and make it acceptable again so we can take over and kill all the Jews? And you're the skeptic who demands evidence there were no gas chambers before you'll believe there weren't any?
 
LemmyCaution said:
???? Belsen wasn't in the east, and it wasn't a death camp. So how could Belsen mirror conditions in Birkenau or Treblinka?
Click to expand...

It can't! That's the point!! That's why Team holocaust looks like a bunch of buffoons when they point to those photos taken in the western camps and pass them off as genuine holophotos. There aren't any photos of people who were gassed. None of them were even identified as Jews. So when somebody says 'my great uncle was a member of the 666th Diablo airborne platoon and he saw the VW bus on cinderblocks with a hose running from the exhaust pipe into an open window and he told me the holocaust is true..' I know the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

But you are lying, frankly, because you posted this, which is a very lame attempt to "whitewash" the death camps: Which, frankly, seems to be you going on about 1) your inability to understand what went down at camps, like Birkenau, involved in the Final Solution, 2) how you refuse to write anything factually accurate at all, in this case concerning Soviet photography, and 3) your ignorance - complete and astounding - of the course of events in the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Soviet photographic and journalistic traditions and, specifically, photographic treatments of the Nazi camps, shootings, and other war crimes.

You get almost nothing, ever, right in anything you post - and yet declare smug self satisfaction with your outpouring of ignorance, mistakes, false dichotomies, strawmen, and blatant misrepresentations. Hooray for you and for denial.
Click to expand...

If I'm so wrong so much of the time, why do you need to misrepresent everything I say? You could simply counter what I say with facts instead of just saying I'm lying.
 
000063 said:
You mean, like a certain revisionist here does regularly, on just about any topic?

No, I'm not talking about you, though I would like to remind the audience about the time you made up the existence of a false dilemma where the second premise was one literally no debunker had proposed or was willing to accept, and how you held onto that same argument regardless of how many people corrected you. I myself asked you at least once to provide evidence of someone making such a claim, and you didn't even bother to respond. And that was just last week. You really have no moral room to talk about the alleged strawmen of others, what with that plank in your eye.

I also once lectured you about your comprehension problems. You read something that you cannot understand, or do not want to understand, and then you dismiss it out of hand or "break it down".

I note that you are no longer directly using the term "irrelevant" or its converse, after repeatedly being asked what you actually define as relevant.

And how is the Eisatzgruppen not relevant? We need something other than your blanket denial. If the same evidence dismisses your claims, there's no need to provide more. For example, your refusal to read the Jager report.
Click to expand...

There is adequate evidence for Einsatzgruppen activity. I don't "deny" Einsatzgruppen activity. Team holocaust believes evidence for the Eisatzgruppen is part of the evidence that jumps together to prove the gas chambers and the plan to exterminate the Jews and the six million number. I'm not gullible enough to fall for the theory that lots of weak evidence adds up to strong evidence. For evidence for Einsatzgruppen activity to be relevant to me you need to tie it to the gas chambers or the plan or the six million. So far, nobody has done that.

I haven't refused to read the Jaeger report. I've read it many times. It's one of the shortest documents in the holocaust liturgy. If you want to talk about it, feel free. If you say something interesting maybe I'll chime in. But don't expect me to start the conversation.

More vague claims you will never back up, much like you won't respond to the fact that post #4437 proved you flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll address that. If anybody is interested is seeing the intellectual bankruptcy of the holocaust story, check this out to see what passes for scholarship in hololand. There are people who say they are skeptics AND who say there's a picture of a mass grave with 700,000 bodies.

Mostly Jews. Wait, do those still count, or is the Holocaust limited to Jews?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it is or not. It depends on what argument needs to be supported. The holocaust isn't about Jews because Jews weren't the only victims of the Nazis. But it is about the Jews because denying it is always antisemitic.
 
LemmyCaution said:
Exactly. Dogzilla has his own private "understanding" of the Holocaust, which he's expressed as plan + 6 mil + gas chambers. As Belz wrote,In the first place, Dogzilla's "understanding" reduces the number of Jewish victims by over 40%, rendering the actions by which these people died, in Dogzilla's mind, "irrelevant." Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the WW2 era, an honest approach, and clear thinking can see right through this gambit. It's been shredded here enough times.

In the second place, Dogzilla must think he's got an ace up his sleeve with his oft-repeated formula: it is hard to understand why, as his musings on plan + 6 mil + gas chambers have likewise been comprehensively undone here to the point that his signature tactic has been dodging when cornered, which means almost constantly. When he has a bit more life in him, Dogzilla uses his second favored tactic, which is actively trying to confuse the discussion (by means of moving the goalposts, vacuous rhetoric and contrived misunderstandings, handwaving relevant points away, and bringing out the strawmen).

As to the gas chambers, his preferred case, I've already noted that Dogzilla has dodged discussion of 5 specific instances, offered months ago, of Jews being murdered en masse, two of these instances leading directly to death camps where Jews were gassed. He declares these instances irrelevant. Wonder why?
Click to expand...

Because they don't address gas plan six? That's probably why.


Yes, and also in posts #4372, 4384, 4415, 4417, 4433, a point I add because 1) it is not like there's a single anomalous example that Dogzilla can handwave away and 2) the number of members chiming in with examples should give Mr Moore pause with a claim he's not made in a while (about these guys making headway with their daft arguments).

Oh, and this other claim of Dogzilla's was shown to be false in post #4371.
Click to expand...

Which claim was that?
 
Dogzilla said:
Because they don't address gas plan six? That's probably why.
Click to expand...

Actually all of them do, by definition, since any mass slaughter of Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe is going to address the 'six' part of your cartoon understanding of the Holocaust, and is also going to address the 'plan' part because it will provide further evidence of the systematic character of the Holocaust.

What is truly hilarious, however, is your inability to recognise that Lemmy Caution's repeated invitation for you to discuss Warsaw and Lodz means 'gas' since the Jews of those cities were killed in Treblinka and Chelmno respectively.

That would mean discussing Nazi documents which contradict your delusory belief that there aren't any documents about gassing (like the "97,000 processed" document related to Chelmno) and might even involve you becoming acquainted with things such as the Szlamek report and Krzepicki's account from Treblinka, which unfortunately for you have the epistemological status of contemporary documents, since they were written down at the time. And they're hardly the only such examples that can be talked about.

One might add that Lemmy's list of "Riga, Kiev, Slonim, Rovno, Lwow, Lublin, Bialystok, Minsk, Poniatowa, Pinsk, the Durchgangsstrasse IV, or other sites" includes several more sites which involved gassings. That you cannot seemingly tell which ones is further proof of your howling ignorance of the history of the Holocaust.
 
Dogzilla said:
It can't! That's the point!! That's why Team holocaust looks like a bunch of buffoons when they point to those photos taken in the western camps and pass them off as genuine holophotos. There aren't any photos of people who were gassed. None of them were even identified as Jews. So when somebody says 'my great uncle was a member of the 666th Diablo airborne platoon and he saw the VW bus on cinderblocks with a hose running from the exhaust pipe into an open window and he told me the holocaust is true..' I know the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

Well, 1) you replied to me, and I have never done such a thing (in fact, I said that Belsen was pertinent as an example of eyewitness testimony, not of the Final Solution), so what was your point replying to me? and 2) you also used Belsen as a foil to Auschwitz in a bizarre attempt to negate the mass murder at Auschwitz – because, in your reasoning, the photographs of Auschwitz at liberation don’t look like those from Belsen.

On the latter issue, I reiterated the distinctions between the two camps - and alluded to the differences in their state at liberation - as part of my explaining why your argument was bereft. Now you lecture me on not making Belsen and Auschwitz equivalent? Making clear nothing more than your overwhelming need to score rhetorical points.

As an aside, your lack of clarity about your own argument led you to offer now a 4th "shrinking" of the Holocaust, limiting it to Poland, a point on which I tried to correct you, to no avail. Also, Nick took the time to provide context for Belsen, which Blatman, to take one historian, places not in the Final Solution but as part of the final phase of Nazi genocide, involving Jews and non-Jews, contrary to your assertion above, which raises the question if you know even the most rudimentary outline of the camp's history.

Dogzilla said:
If I'm so wrong so much of the time, why do you need to misrepresent everything I say? You could simply counter what I say with facts instead of just saying I'm lying.
Click to expand...

I notice that you can type the words misrepresent and lying but seem unable to offer a single example of my misrepresenting or lying.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom