General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[TSR]

Yes you did. As an example of "lying" by deniers, you said: "For example, cm keeps trotting out Churchill, Eisenhower and DeGaulle as proof that there were no gas chambers. Which originated with Smith. When it is pointed out that there are any number of other things which those three also didn't mention which none-the-less happened (the truth cm didn't know until correction) he simply waits a while, then trots it out again. The first time was simple falsehood, even time subsequent has been a lie."

Did you mean that CM was not lying when he says Churchill, Eisenhower, or DeGaulle didn't mention gas chambers?

No they did not mention gas chambers (not that cm has even read any of them). Which is *not* proof that there were no gas chambers -- that's the lie part.

cm is talking about their memoirs and none of the gentlemen mentioned were ever in a death camp, so there is absolutely no reason that they should have mentioned them.

In order to justify this silliness, cm had to posit something that he calls "acquiescence by omission" by which anything not mentioned must be because they secretly knew that they secretly agreed with cm.

When he finally got so tangled up trying to make it work he just ran away -- only to bring it up again and again, most recently a couple of days ago.

 

[Charles Traynor]

No, I have not -- I prefer getting my history from historians.

You could have fooled me from the amount of emotionally loaded trolling posts you make here. As you have not yet seen this film I’m not going too waste much time on the subject.

Steven Spielberg is a proven liar with a history of making and producing Holohoax propaganda movies. One of them, The Liberators, was even withdrawn from sale because its reputation was so badly damaged after being exposed as a Hoax.

Head over to holocaustdenier.com and watch Eric Hunt’s great documentary The Last Days of the Big Lie exposing Spielberg’s film.

Here are some bullet points drawn up by Eric regarding his film. You may wish to address them once you have done your homework:

...
http://www.holocaustdenier.com/questions-for-holohoax-promoters/

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and post a link to the source.

if absolutely everything this woman says is false -- in what way does that make the film itself as a whole a "Holocaust fabrication"? In what was does her mendacity effect in any way, shape or form the normative understanding of the events around which she formed her story?

The Holocaust is based on nothing more than wartime propaganda, rumors and outright lies. It is therefore fitting that Spielberg is making films based on complete bunkum to perpetuate the myth for future generations of gullible Believers.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The Holocaust is based on nothing more than wartime propaganda, rumors and outright lies. It is therefore fitting that Spielberg is making films based on complete bunkum to perpetuate the myth for future generations of gullible Believers.

The historiography of the Holocaust is not based on Irene Zisblatt, despite the best efforts of liars and deceivers to try to make like it is.

 

[Dogzilla]

Especially since it wouldn't do any good anyway, the denialists would just move the goalposts. In fact the mere fact there were tests done would be used to prove the denialists were right.

Look at the 911 debate, another test was done and the results disproved nano thermite but that fact didn't stop the truther brigade.

If you come up with evidence that hundreds of thousands of bodies had once been buried before being dug up, incinerated on outdoor grills using fresh cut wood, human fat, and some other flammable substance as fuel, their bones and teeth ground into little pieces by men with mallets, and reburied in the empty pits that once held the bodies, over a roughly fifteen month period without leaving obvious physical evidence behind, there's really nowhere else the goalposts can be moved. Locating the boundaries of mass graves before covering the area under investigation with a pile of concrete isn't good enough. Finding mass graves that held thousands of bodies isn't good enough. You need pits that could hold hundreds of thousands of bodies to be believable.

And you don't need to worry about desecrating anybody's grave by digging at these sites. I hear the surface of the AR camps is covered with bones shards of the victims. People who don't worry about tourists walking all over a loved ones remains isn't going to care if somebody else digs a hole.

 

[thedopefishlives]

If you come up with evidence that hundreds of thousands of bodies had once been buried before being dug up, incinerated on outdoor grills using fresh cut wood, human fat, and some other flammable substance as fuel, their bones and teeth ground into little pieces by men with mallets, and reburied in the empty pits that once held the bodies, over a roughly fifteen month period without leaving obvious physical evidence behind, there's really nowhere else the goalposts can be moved. Locating the boundaries of mass graves before covering the area under investigation with a pile of concrete isn't good enough. Finding mass graves that held thousands of bodies isn't good enough. You need pits that could hold hundreds of thousands of bodies to be believable.

And you don't need to worry about desecrating anybody's grave by digging at these sites. I hear the surface of the AR camps is covered with bones shards of the victims. People who don't worry about tourists walking all over a loved ones remains isn't going to care if somebody else digs a hole.

Total insensitivity aside, you'd be surprised at what the deniers could come up with as far as goalpost shifts. For example, if the mass graves uncovered were smaller than what Snakey's flawed math says they should be, you would complain about that. I'm sure there are other things the deniers could find, either in the results or in the methodology, that would let them continue in their fantasy world.

 

[Charles Traynor]

Cue another discussion done to death: forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=904222

Many of these posts discuss Dr Joachim Neander's reconstruction of Zisblatt's life in the light of the account she fictionalized in her autobiography.

One wishes the new members of the forum would bring something new to it, but Mr Traynor has never had much new to say about the Holocaust. Ask him how his opus on Auschwitz-Birkenau is coming next time you want a nap.

Hello Fordy,

In the context of the discussion we are having lied about would have been more appropriate than fictionalized. Nevertheless, this does expose your inability to accept the truth about even the vilest of “survivors”.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Hello Fordy,

In the context of the discussion we are having lied about would have been more appropriate than fictionalized. Nevertheless, this does expose your inability to accept the truth about even the vilest of “survivors”.

Except I've volunteered in the past, on this forum http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7949515&postcount=9294, that from what I know Zisblatt fictionaiized, made things up, told a story that is not true, fantasized, lied, is not to be trusted, is a dissembler, falsified, and so on.

Zisblatt is your concern, not mine. I have no desire to defend her and no problem whatsoever believing that she invented false stories about her life. This crap happens. She is a fringe character with apparent psychological problems which led her to fabricate her life's story. She plays no part in the evidence for the Holocaust. The strange bit is how figures like Zisblatt become pseudo-arguments for deniers.

Or will you now show us some scholarly historical works or original research based on her account or even referencing her false story as good evidence for anything except her own marginality?

If you can't, she remains a total irrelevancy despite your obsession.

I think it's now time for you to connect all this to Gabby Giffords.

 

[TSR]

You could have fooled me from the amount of emotionally loaded trolling posts you make here. As you have not yet seen this film I’m not going too waste much time on the subject.

... all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding...

Steven Spielberg is a proven liar with a history of making and producing Holohoax propaganda movies.

Speaking of emotionally laden trolling...

I should care about what Spielberg says about history qua history ... why?

Head over to holocaustdenier.com and watch Eric Hunt’s great documentary The Last Days of the Big Lie exposing Spielberg’s film.

That would be the Eric Hunt who recently assaulted Wiesel?

Convicted felon Eric Hunt, whose own defense attorney described in court as "delusional"?

Once again -- why should I care about what he, or Spielberg say about history?

Here are some bullet points drawn up by Eric regarding his film. You may wish to address them once you have done your homework:

I've done my homework, thank you.

None of it involved this film or anything anyone might say about it.

The Holocaust is based on nothing more than wartime propaganda, rumors and outright lies.

Keep repeating that. Someday you might convince yourself of it, especially if you remain willfully ignorant of the actual history involved.

You certainly aren't going to convince anyone else here.

 

[Aulus Agerius]

You could have fooled me from the amount of emotionally loaded trolling posts you make here. As you have not yet seen this film I’m not going too waste much time on the subject.

Steven Spielberg is a proven liar with a history of making and producing Holohoax propaganda movies. One of them, The Liberators, was even withdrawn from sale because its reputation was so badly damaged after being exposed as a Hoax.

You spend an awful lot of time talking about it though, despite it's being utterly irrelevant. The accuracy of films depiciting historical events has no bearing on those events. Does the inaccuracy of Mel Gibson's depiction of William Wallace in Braveheart prove that Wallace didn't exist or that the Battle of Stirling Bridge didn't happen? It is all just an Australian conspiracy to make people hate the English? The point you are attempting to make is no more ridiculous.

You also need to look you "trolling" on google.

The Holocaust is based on nothing more than wartime propaganda, rumors and outright lies. It is therefore fitting that Spielberg is making films based on complete bunkum to perpetuate the myth for future generations of gullible Believers.

I often wonder why deniers (and other conspiracists) are never willing to sully their elevated minds with anything so squalid as evidence. What makes them so convinced that they are right in their denial? Simple gullibility, or is it that they want their denial to be right?

 

[TSR]

I often wonder why deniers (and other conspiracists) are never willing to sully their elevated minds with anything so squalid as evidence. What makes them so convinced that they are right in their denial? Simple gullibility, or is it that they want their denial to be right?

They *need* it to be right, because the Holocaust being a hoax validates their hate.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Except I've volunteered in the past, on this forum http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7949515&postcount=9294, that from what I know Zisblatt fictionaiized, made things up, told a story that is not true, fantasized, lied, is not to be trusted, is a dissembler, falsified, and so on.

Zisblatt is your concern, not mine. I have no desire to defend her and no problem whatsoever believing that she invented false stories about her life. This crap happens. She is a fringe character with apparent psychological problems which led her to fabricate her life's story. She plays no part in the evidence for the Holocaust. The strange bit is how figures like Zisblatt become pseudo-arguments for deniers.

Or will you now show us some scholarly historical works or original research based on her account or even referencing her false story as good evidence for anything except her own marginality?

If you can't, she remains a total irrelevancy despite your obsession.

I think it's now time for you to connect all this to Gabby Giffords.

What's your opinion of Wiesel the liar.
What's your opinion of Spielberg the liar.
What's your opinion of Wiesenthal the liar.
http://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/it-right-expose-wiesenthal
Wednesday 27 June, 2012
THE JEWISH CHRONICLE ONLINE

It is right to expose Wiesenthal
Accepting that the great Nazi hunter was a braggart and, yes, a liar, can live alongside acknowledging his contribution

By Daniel Finkelstein, August 20, 2009

 

[abaddon]

You could have fooled me from the amount of emotionally loaded trolling posts you make here. As you have not yet seen this film I’m not going too waste much time on the subject.

Steven Spielberg is a proven liar with a history of making and producing Holohoax propaganda movies. One of them, The Liberators, was even withdrawn from sale because its reputation was so badly damaged after being exposed as a Hoax.

Head over to holocaustdenier.com and watch Eric Hunt’s great documentary The Last Days of the Big Lie exposing Spielberg’s film.

Here are some bullet points drawn up by Eric regarding his film. You may wish to address them once you have done your homework:

...


The Holocaust is based on nothing more than wartime propaganda, rumors and outright lies. It is therefore fitting that Spielberg is making films based on complete bunkum to perpetuate the myth for future generations of gullible Believers.

Yeah, sure. Hollywood movies have all the answers. Right.

 

[Mondial]

Elie Wiesel isn't the only holocaust survivor propagandist to have been proven a liar. www.eliewieseltattoo.com There are many such frauds. Simon Wiesenthal was a liar. www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesenthal.shtml Jan Karski was a liar. www.cwporter.com/karski.htm Rudolf Vrba was a liar. www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p417_Faurisson.html Jankiel Wiernik was a liar. www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p-91_Kehl.html Abraham Bomba was a liar. www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p244_Smith.html etc etc etc.

Two articles on False Memory Syndrome tied to the holocaust story. www.codoh.com/library/document/1517 www.codoh.com/library/document/1503

 

[nomuse]

You could have fooled me from the amount of emotionally loaded trolling posts you make here. As you have not yet seen this film I’m not going too waste much time on the subject.

Steven Spielberg is a proven liar....

Who the flying feghoot cares?

Lots of people get their idea of space from "Star Wars" and drek like "Prometheus." Does that mean Astronomy is a slip-shod pile of holes? Should we determine the directions of future astronomical observations by asking people leaving the theater? Is it the duty of all astronomers to drop whatever important work they are doing and concentrate entirely on speaking out in public?

 

[nomuse]

If you come up with evidence that hundreds of thousands of bodies had once been buried before being dug up, incinerated on outdoor grills using fresh cut wood, human fat, and some other flammable substance as fuel, their bones and teeth ground into little pieces by men with mallets, and reburied in the empty pits that once held the bodies, over a roughly fifteen month period without leaving obvious physical evidence behind, there's really nowhere else the goalposts can be moved. Locating the boundaries of mass graves before covering the area under investigation with a pile of concrete isn't good enough. Finding mass graves that held thousands of bodies isn't good enough. You need pits that could hold hundreds of thousands of bodies to be believable.

And you don't need to worry about desecrating anybody's grave by digging at these sites. I hear the surface of the AR camps is covered with bones shards of the victims. People who don't worry about tourists walking all over a loved ones remains isn't going to care if somebody else digs a hole.

And speak of the devil...

This is one of the 9-11 gambits, in the exact same form. "Why'd you cover the graves in concrete? If you'd left them for just one more day-year-decade-until we get tired of asking the same question over and over then SOMEONE might have found SOMETHING that, uh...."

 

[TSR]

Two articles on False Memory Syndrome tied to the holocaust story. www.codoh.com/library/document/1517 www.codoh.com/library/document/1503

I don't, on principle, dip into the Cesspit without very, very good cause, so tell me: Do they also have articles on False Documentation Syndrome, False Demographics Syndrome (or its associated disorder False Never-Heard-From-Again Syndrome), False Physical Traces Syndrome abd False Perpetrator Confession Syndrome? Are those all *not* clinical diagnoses like FMS? And just who recovered these memories -- that being how one acquires FMS?

OTOH, see if this description quoted in Wiki rings a bell for anyone here:

False Memory Syndrome is especially destructive because the person assiduously avoids confrontation with any evidence that might challenge the memory. Thus it takes on a life of its own, encapsulated and resistant to correction.

Now, which group of posters here has the habit of running away from uncomfortable posts?

 

[TSR]

What's your opinion of Wiesel the liar.
What's your opinion of Spielberg the liar.
What's your opinion of Wiesenthal the liar.

*If* they are liars, then I condemn those lies.

Your turn:

What's your opinion of court-proven liar Zundel? (the "False News" trial, wherein he not only failed to convince two different juries of the "truth" of denial -- but failed to even convince them that he himself believed his crap.)
What's your opinion of court-proven liar Irving? (most recently and spectacularly, having been found in a lawsuit he himself brought, to be a liar and distorter of History)
What's your opinion of court-proven liar Rudolf? (He lied about his employer endorsing his crap, he lied to the US on his visa application, he routinely invents make-believe friends with all sorts of impressive credentials -- and then "co"-authors books with them)

 

[LemmyCaution]

What's your opinion of Wiesel the liar.
What's your opinion of Spielberg the liar.
What's your opinion of Wiesenthal the liar.
http://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/it-right-expose-wiesenthal
Wednesday 27 June, 2012
THE JEWISH CHRONICLE ONLINE

Why on earth, just because you haven't been paying attention and/or are trolling, should I repeat what I've written on this forum in the past about Spielberg (okay, I will reiterate that I detested Schindler's List and haven't paid much attention to the rest) and Wiesel (okay, I haven't read his books, just some opeds, which I found cloying, and I rarely see him cited in proper works of history, I don't like him at all)?

Wiesenthal I have no opinion about, as neither he nor his center's work have played a role in the formation of my views on the Holocaust.

Why do you pay so much attention to side shows and have so little knowledge or clue of the work historians have done?

Why did I reply to a lazy and silly bit of trolling?

Sigh.

 

[LemmyCaution]

And speak of the devil...

This is one of the 9-11 gambits, in the exact same form. "Why'd you cover the graves in concrete? If you'd left them for just one more day-year-decade-until we get tired of asking the same question over and over then SOMEONE might have found SOMETHING that, uh...."

And boring. And with the benefit of a few snide asides. Yawn.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I don't, on principle, dip into the Cesspit without very, very good cause, so tell me: Do they also have articles on False Documentation Syndrome, False Demographics Syndrome (or its associated disorder False Never-Heard-From-Again Syndrome), False Physical Traces Syndrome abd False Perpetrator Confession Syndrome? Are those all *not* clinical diagnoses like FMS? And just who recovered these memories -- that being how one acquires FMS?

OTOH, see if this description quoted in Wiki rings a bell for anyone here:

Now, which group of posters here has the habit of running away from uncomfortable posts?

I'd settle for their synopsis of how the Moscow Forgery Factories operated: who set them up, street addresses, names of workers and managers, documents trumped up, how documents were inserted into archives, etc.