General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

[CaptainHowdy]

But that's not true is it? Before an academic "goes public", a paper goes through the peer review process in private. Do you have any examples of someone being charged under Sec130 "Public incitement" whilst undergoing peer review at a normal university in Germany?

List all those people for us.

It wouldn't be "public incitement" if an academic paper was being passed among professors in private. So the law wouldn't apply in the early stages of peer review.

 

[Rincewind]

I wonder, given the volume of evidence available, if any denier academic papers would progress through peer review at all - even if in private.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

But that's not true is it? Before an academic "goes public", a paper goes through the peer review process in private. Do you have any examples of someone being charged under Sec130 "Public incitement" whilst undergoing peer review at a normal university in Germany?

It wouldn't be "public incitement" if an academic paper was being passed among professors in private. So the law wouldn't apply in the early stages of peer review.

So therefore there is no problem. Max is under no legal risk, in enrolling at a German university and lodging his alternative thesis for peer review.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I wonder, given the volume of evidence available, if any denier academic papers would progress through peer review at all - even if in private.

I'd prefer an academic to offer us an overview, but I think that's the whole point. The objective evidence is overwhelming. That is why holocaust deniers prefer to use "one way" propaganda media, such as You tube, as they can ignore facts that don't match their propaganda and can't get criticised, on the spot, for doing just that.

In the Eric Hunt propaganda video, on Treblinka, he directly states there has never been a forensic investigation at Treblinka, yet he happily talks about the 1945 Polish investigation on forums.

 

[Rincewind]

I'd prefer an academic to offer us an overview, but I think that's the whole point. The objective evidence is overwhelming. That is why holocaust deniers prefer to use "one way" propaganda media, such as You tube, as they can ignore facts that don't match their propaganda and can't get criticised, on the spot, for doing just that.

In the Eric Hunt propaganda video, on Treblinka, he directly states there has never been a forensic investigation at Treblinka, yet he happily talks about the 1945 Polish investigation on forums.

I have noticed that the deniers often fixate on the trivial - as if that's going to make a difference...

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I have noticed that the deniers often fixate on the trivial - as if that's going to make a difference...

Yes, I agree. "Nit picking" is a good description.

I imagine that holocaust deniers avoid "over all" views because it makes their own claims ridiculous. For example, I can never get a holocaust denier to explain what the Secret Jewish conspiracy is?

If the first eyewitness reports concerning mass executions start appearing in 1942 in Poland by escapees, then how does Adolph Eichmann claim the same events happened in an Israeli court in 1960? There are around a hundred eyewitness reports from both Jewish slave workers, Poles, Ukrainians and Germans saying the same thing over decades.

Who exactly do Holocaust denier claim is coordinating the instructions telling these eyewitnesses what to say if they are all fake (according to holocaust deniers)? Why would German SS officers follow instructions from a secret Jewish organisation? If the British army supposedly beat up Hoess to make him confess, then is not the British army part of this secret Jewish conspiracy, as they had to share the same eyewitness information?

The whole holocaust denial movement is just silly. Now that Treblinka is being excavated, I imagine the few remaining deniers will become even weirder in their claims.

 

[Dash80]

Yes, I agree. "Nit picking" is a good description.

I imagine that holocaust deniers avoid "over all" views because it makes their own claims ridiculous. For example, I can never get a holocaust denier to explain what the Secret Jewish conspiracy is?

If the first eyewitness reports concerning mass executions start appearing in 1942 in Poland by escapees, then how does Adolph Eichmann claim the same events happened in an Israeli court in 1960? There are around a hundred eyewitness reports from both Jewish slave workers, Poles, Ukrainians and Germans saying the same thing over decades.

Who exactly do Holocaust denier claim is coordinating the instructions telling these eyewitnesses what to say if they are all fake (according to holocaust deniers)? Why would German SS officers follow instructions from a secret Jewish organisation? If the British army supposedly beat up Hoess to make him confess, then is not the British army part of this secret Jewish conspiracy, as they had to share the same eyewitness information?

The whole holocaust denial movement is just silly. Now that Treblinka is being excavated, I imagine the few remaining deniers will become even weirder in their claims.

I predict there will be so much hand waving of the Treblinka study that you could probably generate power for a small town , like some giant human freakin' wind farm.

My uncle visited Sobibor a few years ago, not sure about now but you could find bits of bone all over the place. A denier "explained" this to me, saying "they" scatter bones on the site to make it seem authentic. You just can't win with this kind of lunacy.

 

[afree87]

Moved from here. Please keep to the general discussion thread.

Posted By: LashL

For some reason I thought that checking this forum would finally resolve my doubts as to whether Elie Wiesel has a tattoo.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The best argument this forum can give is that the "tattoo faded away" when he has clearly stated that he looks at it every day and has shown it to people even recently.

 

[nomuse]

For some reason I thought that checking this forum would finally resolve my doubts as to whether Elie Wiesel has a tattoo.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The best argument this forum can give is that the "tattoo faded away" when he has clearly stated that he looks at it every day and has shown it to people even recently.

That's a remarkable reading.

I just read the thread through when you resurrected it, and what I grasped was rather different; to wit, that the tattoo -- done, mind you, without the vivid colors or long-lasting inks of modern work -- might not be visible in a small blurry photograph.

This is Apollo Hoax level here.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So the guy might not want a photo taken with the resolution required to see a faded old tattoo?

And assuming this one guy was fraud, how does that overturn the people with known and proven tattoos? Just out of interest?

 

[Tomtomkent]

For people like lionking, TSR, and uke2se, whether or not what Elie Wiesel says is true doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not what Elie Wiesel says about the holocaust sounds bad.

What Elie says sounds bad so it doesn't matter if it's true. Remember, some things are true that never happened.

So, is there a context in which the holocaust, even as a concept or notion, was not something that sounds bad? How else does it sound?

 

[afree87]

So the guy might not want a photo taken with the resolution required to see a faded old tattoo?

Sounds plausible. I don't know why he wouldn't just say so, and instead claims "modesty". Then again, from his other public statements it's clear that he is a weird person and not representative of Holocaust survivors.

And assuming this one guy was fraud, how does that overturn the people with known and proven tattoos? Just out of interest?

It doesn't. I am not a Holocaust denier, I am just suspicious of Wiesel in particular -- he has only admitted very begrudgingly that his book is fictional and I don't know where else in his life story he has deviated from the facts.

 

[Nessie]

ERic Hunt's video on the TII investigations is riddled with logical fallacies. For example, poisoning the well as he describes C S-C as an alleged scientist.

He continually claims people were transited through TII, but the witnesses are describing a selection process and then leaving the area without having entered the camp at TII. Only one claims she ended up in the gas chamber. None mention hair cuts, showering, medicals, nothing. There is a gaping hole in his claim about TII as a transit hygiene camp. There are no witnesses to such.

He constantly goes back to past mistakes such as use of diesel and tries to make out such mistakes continue. They do not with the academics and it is him who is preserving such errors in the public mind. It seems very odd for a so called revisionist to be critical of revision of the narrative.

He makes an odd point about how the Rabbi is not consulted with regards to the dig at the Christian cemetery. That will because he is not Christian.

His does not distinguish between bone finds by the Staffordshire Uni team on the surface of the ground and ash scattered on rocks at the pyre memorial. he claims many do such, but only evidences one man doing so. In any case the ash will soon blow away and be scattered, unlike the bones.

He goes into red herring mode over the Star of David mistake and fails to acknowledge the mistake was made on site, at the time and has since been corrected. Denier/revisionists do not appear to like it when historians make revisions and correct mistakes.

He fails to understand he is watching a made for TV documentary. So it uses imagery such as the opening photo of the boy with his hands up and the darkened colouration to make it more interesting for the lay person target. He spots the finding of the tile is badly edited and concludes (maybe correctly) it was acted out later for the cameras. Yet again, it is a documentary. There will also be scientific results published.

Then he launches in to Jews control the media and fails to understand his bias will clearly affect his conclusions.

The final finding of horse bones in the woods is evidence he went for a walk and found some horse bones. His attempts at conclusions from that are just fallacies of incredulity and further show his bias.

 

[KDLarsen]

Interesting reading on the excavation at Sobibor: http://www.spiegel.de/international...-to-the-gas-chambers-of-sobibor-a-993733.html

 

[Saggy]

Where is the holohoax discussion ?

I cannot find the holohoax denial forum?

Is discussion of the hoax still allowed?

How do I find it?

For those interested, the best intro to the subject is provided by 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, the Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry' by Northwestern prof Arthur Butz. This is a great book, every skeptic should read it.

 

[dudalb]

I cannot find the holohoax denial forum?

Is discussion of the hoax still allowed?

How do I find it?

For those interested, the best intro to the subject is provided by 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, the Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry' by Northwestern prof Arthur Butz. This is a great book, every skeptic should read it.

Butz's book is a steming pile of crap, pure nonsense, and should be read only as an example of crackpot history at it;s worse.

Funny you should come back the day that Leonard Nimoy died, since he earned the hatred of the deniers by producing and starring in the TV Movie "Never Forget" about Mel Melmerstein, the Holocaust survivor who sued The IHR (a holocaust denial organization) when they refused to pay him a 50'000 dollar reward they offered for definent proof the Holcaust happened, and won. The case established the Holocaust as a legally recognized fact,and wrecked what little reputation the IHR had.

 

[beachnut]

I cannot find the holohoax denial forum?

Is discussion of the hoax still allowed?

How do I find it?

For those interested, the best intro to the subject is provided by 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, the Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry' by Northwestern prof Arthur Butz. This is a great book, every skeptic should read it.

Why read a book filled with lies and BS? What is great about lies and ignorance, which the book is based on at best.

 

[trustbutverify]

I cannot find the holohoax denial forum?

Is discussion of the hoax still allowed?

How do I find it?

For those interested, the best intro to the subject is provided by 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, the Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry' by Northwestern prof Arthur Butz. This is a great book, every skeptic should read it.

Your text proving the holohoax is a thoroughly debunked bunch of nonsense from a racist engineer? Oh well.

 

[sadhatter]

The point is that the video shows Ernst Zündel and other deniers being rigorously persecuted. Pro Holocausters do not speak up against that unusual practice, which means: they support it. In this case a discussion is not a discussion, science is not science. Thesis without anti thesis cannot lead to sythesis, is unscientific, if not unethical. Everybody being involved in such a pseudo discussion behaves this unethical way - deniers as well as all others. First persecution has to be removed everywhere. Then discussions can be called discussions.

In my experience persecution can be summed up as people, especially academics disagreeing with them.

They seem top have this mindset that because the holocaust is accepted that responding to their claim is persecution, they don't want a two way conversation, they want to just make a statement and let whatever fish bite, bite.

And when this doesn't happen, they claim persecution.

 

[sadhatter]

I've always wanted an answer to this.

To preface, i do not have a drop of Jewish blood (full disclosure, I'm adopted, and only know half my ethnic make up. I'm often told i "look Jewish" and get mistaken for a Jewish person, though personally i am a huge fan of the Jewish people and i don't see it.) And in fact my family is a tad on the racist side. Not overly but in that old school sense.

My grandfather was in the war, and had a leg broken for assisting Jewish folks, in addition to many horror stories.

He was never an academic, never had a reason to lie about this, so why would he?

(don't be afraid of offending me because its my relative, i wouldn't ask the question as bait. And i have a very thick skin)