Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
That is the dumbest form of logic I've ever heard.
Tell you what...why don't you prove that I didn't just eat a delicious homemade Reuben.
General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II
- Thread starter SnakeTongue
- Start date
- Status
That is the dumbest form of logic I've ever heard.
Tell you what...why don't you prove that I didn't just eat a delicious homemade Reuben.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I don't think there is Crackpot Theory on the face of the planet that SHC does not buy into.
That, or his is just a very persistent Troll.
That, or his is just a very persistent Troll.
Wroclaw
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,500
Have you ever had a gun to your head?
Nick Terry
Illuminator
That would be the 'overwhelming lack of scientific evidence' which we somehow managed to write 571 pages about, and which features the longest discussion of mass graves and open air cremation at the Reinhard camps of any work currently available on pages 383-517? As in, 134 pages worth of such discussion?
Last edited:
Only among the mentally ill, deniers, and neo-nazis.
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,084
Kevin.Silbstedt said:
I guess that car was not produced before 1945.
As well, that film was edited.
Clearly, the quality of the first part showing the sick patients was not produced at the same moment with the part which shows the vehicles.
The pipe coming of the car is not even attached to the original exhaust pipe...
No scenes of gas chambers...
Kevin.Silbstedt said:
(...)
Freaking amazing. Because there are no guards in a photograph (which was carefully taken when no guards were looking), there are no guards?
Seriously? They are behind barbed wire with no where to run, their food as well as their continued survival dependent on the whims of their guards, and you are going to say that unless a gun was at their heads every single instant they weren't actually under duress?
I had to revise this post six times. It was that hard not to express in plain language what I felt of the stupidity and failed empathy on display.
Seriously? They are behind barbed wire with no where to run, their food as well as their continued survival dependent on the whims of their guards, and you are going to say that unless a gun was at their heads every single instant they weren't actually under duress?
I had to revise this post six times. It was that hard not to express in plain language what I felt of the stupidity and failed empathy on display.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
That would be the 'overwhelming lack of scientific evidence' which we somehow managed to write 571 pages about, and which features the longest discussion of mass graves and open air cremation at the Reinhard camps of any work currently available on pages 318-517? As in, 199 pages worth of such discussion?
Open air cremation of humans. An absolutely insane fabrication.
000063
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 5,398
Based on what, exactly? You were asked to prove the video was faked, and all you can do is speculate and If and Maybe and Clearly this and that. I especially like how not showing the people in the chambers apparently means they didn't exist. And of course the emaciated prisoners disembarking wasn't shot simultaneously with the car running. It was shot a few minutes later, after they were sealed into the chamber. Because when we see them, they are outside.
Reflexive baseless incredulity noted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/hindu-cremation-pyre-appeal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation_Act_1902#Open_air_pyres
Last edited:
SnakeTongue: Here's a picture of Russian soldiers at Stalingrad. Can you find any NKVD officers threatening to kill these men unless they keep advancing?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalingrad2.JPG
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalingrad2.JPG
Last edited:
Matthew Cline
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 897
Really? So, for example, the number of people online who spend time arguing against the claim that vaccines are the primary cause of autism is actually evidence for that claim?
@SpringHallConvert: Are there any commonly accepted historical claims about WWII which have been adequately proved? Maybe it's also impossible to prove or disprove that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Japan at the end of the war.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Please don't get him going on the "autism is caused by vaccines" nonsense in this thread. He's already been expounding at some length about it in this other thread here in the CT forum.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
The government truthers aren't having an easy time in this thread pimping their ridiculous "Final Solution" conspiracy theory. Notice how frustrated they get when the non-brainwashed challenge their pro-Zionist historical mythology.
"If you don't believe in our conspiracy theory, you are a Nazi Hitler-lover! Believe, or we will call you even more names than that!"
It's downright pathetic.
"If you don't believe in our conspiracy theory, you are a Nazi Hitler-lover! Believe, or we will call you even more names than that!"
It's downright pathetic.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Funny that. Your truth requires hundreds of thousands of people to disappear without ever trying to contact their relatives. And the "died from diseases" variation still requires something to happen to those dead people. Hmmm...
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
000063 said:
I absolutely agree. "Bombing" concentration camps is one of the silliest concepts the holocaust deniers have invented. It makes no sense yet they keep bringing it up.
A photo reconnaissance mosquito could just reach Poland before 30Dec1942 if it flew in a straight line over Germany (and its flak & air defence services), but imagine trying to find Treblinka from 10,000ft in rural Poland once the aircraft arrived. The aircraft would simply run out of fuel looking. The Brits were receiving better information from the Polish resistance around this time. The UK only had five ( I think) photo reconnaissance mosquitos at the time. Why waste a machine and a pilot for no purpose with no clear goal.
It also illustrates one point: The lack of traction Jewish interest groups had. Which would also be needed if one were to instigate a hoax the size Team Dead Nazi Whitewashing claims to have happened. If you add denier claims up 2 + 2 ends up as seventeen.
The Dark Lord
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,859
The vast majority of Holocaust deniers are Hitler huggers. The rest are just really stupid. I'll let you pick which one you are.
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
Within the greater context of the war, the allies do appear to have done all reasonable things they could have, to stop further German executions of Jews and other groups.
It is my opinion that the allies acted quickly. The mass execution of Jews becomes public knowledge in November 1942 and a joint proclamation is issued by the UK, USA and USSR in 17th of December 1942 warning Germany that war crimes against civilians would be prosecuted. This may not seem much but it makes very clear to Germans what was going to happen.
The hiding of mass execution evidence, under SonderAktion 1005, appears to have started prior to this proclamation. I imagine, but don't know, that the activities of sonde Aktion 1005 increased as a result of receiving the proclamation.
I have read of the dissapointment of Jewish support groups concerning the Burmuda Conference to discuss allied intervention. However I can't for the life of me think of what more the allies could do at this point of time in the war.
000063
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 5,398
To clarify, everyone, Ellard is talking about the De Havellard Mosquito multi-role plane, not some sort of high-tech experimental spy insect. For an interesting novella involving it, read (or listen to) The Shepherd by Frederick Forsyth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2_bLEqmBi0
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
Please call me Matthew. I use my real name. However thank you for renaming de Havilland "Havellard". I have never been so honoured in my life!
For a jolly good read, try get your paws on....
"Evidence in Camera" by Constance Babington Smith.
It is a sort of real time history of Bristish aircraft photo reconaissance. The pilots are all dashing, the problems are insurmountable, planes are nicked from active squadrons and individuals tinker with photo equipment over a cup of tea while being bombed. From this book I learned that the speed of a boat can be determined by the way it's bows break the water in photographs
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
This is a really weird post. I refer you to previous discussions in which I cited multiple primary sources (you use yellow highlighting to twist what I say - "in this thread I have cited many primary sources showing mass extermination of Jews" - not highlighting "in this thread" of course). You post some Internet links to sites like Wikipedia, as though I think they are primary sources?!?!? You post other citations of mine answering questions about where evidence is dealt with, again distorting that I think these are primary source. Also, I named 2 of the primary sources I had cited earlier "in this thread," just to be a sport (Jaeger, Sakowicz) - and I never said I didn't also cite secondary sources - and what do you do? You list secondary sources I've referred you to (although you mix in Filip Mueller for some reason), as though you are proving something. What gives?
You link to Gideon Greif's book, making it seem that I offered that as a primary document from the 1940s when in fact, as you know, it was cited to show the false claim in a statement you made, "Nobody had published anything in which it was claimed that he worked in a gassing institution for human beings."
And you finally refer to the Jaeger report with the absurd "analysis" that by posting a summary and explanation of it, I "miserable failed to provide one single link to anyone verify the report." What do you even mean? Do you doubt the authenticity of the Jaeger report? If so, say you do - and demonstrate why. Simple.
As to your question about the Birkenau SK photo, why would you imagine a snapshot would show an entire process? Did I claim it did? No. I didn't post that photograph to "prove" how the process was done, in its whole, but rather to show the closest case I could to respond to your nearly illiterate questions, "Why is so difficult to find a picture or a video of German workers taking dead bodies out of a supposed gas chamber? Where is footages showing German workers carrying dead bodies to a crematorium?" So, then you follow a post of a photo used to illustrate one thing with a whole bunch of questions trying to show that I failed to use it to prove something else entirely. Very odd. And very dishonest.
By the way, given the conditions under which the SK photos were taken, it is very fortunate that we have them at all. The camp SS were not exactly giving guided photo tours of the killing installations for camp inmates, you know. Sheesh.
Your attempts to distort what I've posted are duly noted, of course.
Full disclosure: I am not an expert, nor do I want to be, on deniers. Never claimed to be, either.
Last edited:
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
It is astonishing, isn't it? I guess he expected the guards to pose for the clandestine photographers, and brandish their weapons?
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
An interesting examination of what the Jewish press was saying during the war is found in Yosef Gorny's recent book, which makes clear that Jewish papers took December 1942, as did the Allies, to give a decisive answer to what was happening to Europe's Jews, that Jewish organizations were powerless to stop the slaughter, and that in the 1940s many Jewish leaders agreed with the Allies that the best, most effective defense of European Jews was to go all out to win the war against Nazi Germany. http://books.google.com/books?id=vb...6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=gorny jewish press&f=false
000063
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 5,398
Hee.Please call me Matthew. I use my real name. However thank you for renaming de Havilland "Havellard". I have never been so honoured in my life!
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
Because you have computer modeled it?
Or do you really expect anyone, even your little denier friends, to take your personal incredulity to mean anything more than there's is nothing you will not sneer at and lie about to justify your irrational hate?
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Now, now. There's no need to be binary - they can be both.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
If I might return to the document thing for a moment, while looking at the document scans on the website for the Wannsee Conference House Memorial and Educational Site where SnakeTongue found one of the documents he supposedly used to prove the March 26, 1942, Rauff document was a forgery based on the "office code", I chanced across documents that prove he has no idea what he's talking about in his "analysis".
He said,
Unfortunately for SnakeTongue, the invitations to the Wannsee Conference sent under Heydrich's signature prove him completely wrong about the above.
On November 29, 1941, Heydrich scheduled a conference to discuss the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question", and sent invitations to a number of leading Nazis. The invitation was sent to Martin Luther of the Foreign Office (available as a high-quality PDF scan here), and asked him to attend a conference at Wannsee on December 12, 1941. As you can see on the upper left, the document was sent from Adolf Eichmann's RSHA department for Jewish Affairs and Deportation, Referat IV B 4, to which the department's Verteiler, Rudolf Jaenisch, gave the typewritten filing code 3076/41g (1180), and it was sent from Berlin (where Eichmann's IV B 4 was located, at Kurfuerstenstrasse 115/116).
SnakeTongue would have you believe that this was because Heydrich knew that IV B 4 was "the department responsible for the subject discussed in the document", which is why it appeared on the document even though Heydrich signed it, and the lack of such a "responsible" department on Rauff's letter of March 1942 means it is a forgery.
Except that's not why IV B 4 appeared on that document at all. It's because that letter was written by Eichmann himself in Berlin, which is why it bears his institutional symbol (Heydrich regularly got Eichmann to write his letters for him), and Heydrich merely signed it.
How do we know this? Because on January 8th, 1942, Heydrich sent out a letter rescheduling the conference at Wannsee: since the December 9, 1941 meeting had to be canceled, the conference would now be held at Wannsee on January 20, 1942. You can see a high-quality PDF of that letter Luther received here.
The first thing that should become apparent is that this document was not sent by Eichmann's IV B 4, something that should not have happened according to SnakeTongue. Instead, it was sent by Heydrich's office directly, from Prague (not Berlin). And, since Heydrich as "Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD" had no institutional symbol as a RSHA referent, the filing code on the document (half typewritten and half handwritten) is given as an abbreviation of "Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD", C.d.S, and is filed under 18/42.
Why the difference, if both documents are dealing with the exact same subject (the scheduling of and invitations for the Wannsee Conference)?
That's because the first document was written by Eichmann, which is why it was tagged with Eichmann's institutional symbol. It was sent by his office, and even though it was signed by Heydrich, it was Eichmann who was responsible for the content of the document.
The second document, though, was sent from Heydrich's office in Prague (where he was Acting Protector). Since Eichmann was still in Berlin, Heydrich couldn't get Eichmann's office of IV B 4 to write the new invitation. Instead, it came from his own staff in Prague, and was labeled and filed accordingly (the typist of this document, unlike the typist who typed the first document, didn't even know where it would be filed [other than it would be in a file opened in the new year, 1942], which is why the filing code was handwritten in later).
Two documents, dealing with the same thing, but with different filing/office codes, because they were created by (and thus were the "responsibility" of), two completely separate sets of RSHA personnel.
The second thing that should become apparent is regarding the "date inconsistency". SnakeTongue said,
Now, take a close look at the upper right-hand corner of the initial invitation sent from Eichmann's office on November 29, 1941.
See where the city, the prefix "den", and the first three digits of the year are preprinted on the document? This means the typist who actually typed the document would only actually need to enter in the day, the month, and the last digit of the year.
Now what does that resemble?
Oh right:
Ooops, SnakeTongue.
He said,
Unfortunately for SnakeTongue, the invitations to the Wannsee Conference sent under Heydrich's signature prove him completely wrong about the above.
On November 29, 1941, Heydrich scheduled a conference to discuss the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question", and sent invitations to a number of leading Nazis. The invitation was sent to Martin Luther of the Foreign Office (available as a high-quality PDF scan here), and asked him to attend a conference at Wannsee on December 12, 1941. As you can see on the upper left, the document was sent from Adolf Eichmann's RSHA department for Jewish Affairs and Deportation, Referat IV B 4, to which the department's Verteiler, Rudolf Jaenisch, gave the typewritten filing code 3076/41g (1180), and it was sent from Berlin (where Eichmann's IV B 4 was located, at Kurfuerstenstrasse 115/116).
SnakeTongue would have you believe that this was because Heydrich knew that IV B 4 was "the department responsible for the subject discussed in the document", which is why it appeared on the document even though Heydrich signed it, and the lack of such a "responsible" department on Rauff's letter of March 1942 means it is a forgery.
Except that's not why IV B 4 appeared on that document at all. It's because that letter was written by Eichmann himself in Berlin, which is why it bears his institutional symbol (Heydrich regularly got Eichmann to write his letters for him), and Heydrich merely signed it.
How do we know this? Because on January 8th, 1942, Heydrich sent out a letter rescheduling the conference at Wannsee: since the December 9, 1941 meeting had to be canceled, the conference would now be held at Wannsee on January 20, 1942. You can see a high-quality PDF of that letter Luther received here.
The first thing that should become apparent is that this document was not sent by Eichmann's IV B 4, something that should not have happened according to SnakeTongue. Instead, it was sent by Heydrich's office directly, from Prague (not Berlin). And, since Heydrich as "Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD" had no institutional symbol as a RSHA referent, the filing code on the document (half typewritten and half handwritten) is given as an abbreviation of "Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD", C.d.S, and is filed under 18/42.
Why the difference, if both documents are dealing with the exact same subject (the scheduling of and invitations for the Wannsee Conference)?
That's because the first document was written by Eichmann, which is why it was tagged with Eichmann's institutional symbol. It was sent by his office, and even though it was signed by Heydrich, it was Eichmann who was responsible for the content of the document.
The second document, though, was sent from Heydrich's office in Prague (where he was Acting Protector). Since Eichmann was still in Berlin, Heydrich couldn't get Eichmann's office of IV B 4 to write the new invitation. Instead, it came from his own staff in Prague, and was labeled and filed accordingly (the typist of this document, unlike the typist who typed the first document, didn't even know where it would be filed [other than it would be in a file opened in the new year, 1942], which is why the filing code was handwritten in later).
Two documents, dealing with the same thing, but with different filing/office codes, because they were created by (and thus were the "responsibility" of), two completely separate sets of RSHA personnel.
The second thing that should become apparent is regarding the "date inconsistency". SnakeTongue said,
Now, take a close look at the upper right-hand corner of the initial invitation sent from Eichmann's office on November 29, 1941.
See where the city, the prefix "den", and the first three digits of the year are preprinted on the document? This means the typist who actually typed the document would only actually need to enter in the day, the month, and the last digit of the year.
Now what does that resemble?
Oh right:
Ooops, SnakeTongue.
Last edited:
threadworm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,831
He's just Freislering off.
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,084
Religion is a proxy for racial persecution?
noun (plural proxies)
1 the authority to represent someone else, especially in voting:
they may register to vote by proxy
- a person authorized to act on behalf of another.
- a document authorizing a person to vote on another’s behalf.
2a figure that can be used to represent the value of something in a calculation:
the use of a US wealth measure as a proxy for the true worldwide measure
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proxy?region=us&q=proxy
1 the authority to represent someone else, especially in voting:
they may register to vote by proxy
- a person authorized to act on behalf of another.
- a document authorizing a person to vote on another’s behalf.
2a figure that can be used to represent the value of something in a calculation:
the use of a US wealth measure as a proxy for the true worldwide measure
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proxy?region=us&q=proxy
So the German national party convinced the German population and other foreign population to denounce the Judaism believers because they were not an acceptable race.
Astonishing.
It is accusations as well of persecution based on sexual behaviour.
Somewhere it is affirmed that Gypsies were persecuted.
These persecutions were also made on the basis of racial hatred?
How that is documented?
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
They're stupid people if they aren't big pharma shills.
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,084
It remembers me that I post a wrong calculation many posts ago...
This time, I will correct myself.
The Nazis constantly searched for more efficient means of extermination. At the Auschwitz camp in Poland, they conducted experiments with Zyklon B (previously used for fumigation) by gassing some 600 Soviet prisoners of war and 250 ill prisoners in September 1941. Zyklon B pellets, converted to lethal gas when exposed to air. They proved the quickest gassing method and were chosen as the means of mass murder at Auschwitz. At the height of the deportations, up to 6,000 Jews were gassed each day at Auschwitz.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005220
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005220
Now the question: how much corpses was the crematorium able to burn per day?
Some indication of the actual capacity of the crematoria may be found in a letter from the firm of Topf & Söhne to the Mauthausen concentration camp. It states that in the “coke-fuelled Topf dual-muffle cremation ovens… about ten to thirty-five corpses” could be cremated “in about ten hours” and that as many could be “cremated daily without overloading the ovens” even if the “cremations took place one after the other, day and night.”
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=S-o7AAAAMAAJ&q="leichen+zur"#search_anchor
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=S-o7AAAAMAAJ&q="leichen+zur"#search_anchor
Let's suppose that there was 5 ovens in 5 buildings in full operation!
6000 - (((35/10)*24)*5*5) = 3900
3900 bodies for open air pyres without any interruption.
How many open air pyres are necessary to burn 3900 bodies per day?
Anne Frank diary is not acceptable as reference.
Bluespaceoddity
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 440
Apparently you are unfamiliar with this aspect of persecution in nazi occupied territory. Out of curiosity. Can you outline which steps you take yourself to verify something like the part of DDT's comment you highlighted? What, besides posting a "spoon feed me" type question on this forum, do you do when you're confronted with an unfamiliar piece of information?
Another point of curiosity. Are you aware that ANTPogo has patiently and meticulously dissected your borrowed nitpicking about the letter or has your total failure to substantiate your forgery claims only registered with your opponents?
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Sums up your whole argument.
- Status
