• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just noting kageki's continued refusal or inability to reply to straightforward questions asked of him on the Nazis' open air shooting of Jews in the east.

I wasn't referring to your definition of shootings. Your point about shootings is about the scale rather then the possibility. My point was that simply shooting someone is within the realm of possibility as opposed to gas chambers where the possibility alone is in question in addition to the scale and purpose.

You certainly have me intrigued because you say the Holocaust doesn't make sense to you, but you believe it anyways?
 
My point was that simply shooting someone is within the realm of possibility as opposed to gas chambers where the possibility alone is in question in addition to the scale and purpose.


Why? What is your basis for saying shooting large numbers of people is "within the realm of possibility" while gassing them is not? It comes across as a desperate attempt to justify your position. (And in any event your personal incredulity does not count as evidence.)
 
Why? What is your basis for saying shooting large numbers of people is "within the realm of possibility" while gassing them is not? It comes across as a desperate attempt to justify your position. (And in any event your personal incredulity does not count as evidence.)

I suppose the issue with the shootings is the amount, but I consider Katyn a large amount. It says 22,000 on wiki. Maybe you might dispute the figure, but it is surely physically possible to shoot and kill large amounts of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

Mass gassings on the other hand aren't that simple and provide all sorts of complications that require various precautions to be taken in addition to the scale and the other incredible details about it. You know this of course.

Basically it boils down to it happened just because:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n3p40_Faurisson.html

It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible given that it took place.That is the requisite point of departure of any historical inquiry on this subject. It is incumbent upon us to simply state this truth: there is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers.
 
Mass gassings on the other hand aren't that simple and provide all sorts of complications that require various precautions to be taken in addition to the scale and the other incredible details about it. You know this of course.

That's sufficiently vague. You need to be much more specific. What kinds of problems?
 
You should assist Saggy and Clayton Moore with their creation of a Holocaust denier's timeline. Take note of the date and put this on it:

Pressac, Technique - page 233
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0233.htm

Rudolf tried to hand wave it away and you try to pretend it never existed - or are you also going to deny that you were aware of this study in addition to denying the Holocaust?

Diversion after diversion. All to take attention from the impossibility of the bigger lies and the big lie of the Holocaust myth. The little diversionary lies are the never ending paths to nowhere. Tis the stuff that the term "SO?"
was created to countermand, later to become strengthened by the don't waste my time "SO WHAT?" And the current text cursing version.

I mean, really, why would the Germans go to the expense to bring and waste the manpower required to oversee millions of people to Poland for ritual murder?
 
I wasn't referring to your definition of shootings. Your point about shootings is about the scale rather then the possibility. My point was that simply shooting someone is within the realm of possibility as opposed to gas chambers where the possibility alone is in question in addition to the scale and purpose.
No, it is very simple or has been quite ordinary to execute people in gas chambers. Individuals. The possibility of this is neither far fetched nor without documentation.

You certainly have me intrigued because you say the Holocaust doesn't make sense to you, but you believe it anyways?
I have already explained this. My understanding of the Nazi genocide and war crimes is shaped by evidence about these things, not my own view of what reality should be like. Let me put it another way, in my experience and based on my reading a lot of history as well, a group's putting people from certain designated other groups in rows of ten and shooting them dead into pits hour after hour is so far beyond the pale that it is hard to comprehend. That mass murders, by various means, occur does not mean they make sense on the surface. Perhaps I am a naive optimist, but the version of reality I would like does not have men in uniforms shooting down defenseless men, women, and children in their thousands. By the same token, particle physics is also outside my experience and could I not read about experiments and their results, it would be hard to accept. I could say the same for evolution as the time scales are beyond my experience. And so on. Yet there is evidence for the mass shootings of Jews (and others, let's be clear) by the Nazis, and also for particle physics and evolution. This isn't a difficult concept, that outlandish and troubling things which don't make a lot of common sense occur, and I have now explained it 3-4 times.

I asked you, and you've been silent about this, on what basis you accept the open air shootings, what you think their scale was, and why they happened. These are the questions you keep avoiding answering.
 
Last edited:
Or they used a pre-existing ditch, as at Babi Yar.
And pits previously dug for fuel storage as at Ponar. And elsewhere anti-tank ditches. Whatever they could opportunistically lay their hands on or improvise into use or create if need be. All this is in the literature in spades.
 
I suppose the issue with the shootings is the amount, but I consider Katyn a large amount. It says 22,000 on wiki. Maybe you might dispute the figure, but it is surely physically possible to shoot and kill large amounts of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

Mass gassings on the other hand aren't that simple and provide all sorts of complications that require various precautions to be taken in addition to the scale and the other incredible details about it. You know this of course.

Basically it boils down to it happened just because:
No, the IHR quotation is not correct: for example, Pressac has been very interested in how technically the gassings were accomplished.

Nor is it correct to say that the mass shootings were simple: issues like the emotional state of the shooters, complex logistics, camouflage of the purpose from the victims, controlling "crowds" of the curious, etc., had to be dealt with. In fact, it was found that mass shootings took a very heavy toll on the killers and that managing this impact was a serious and difficult business.
 
Last edited:
Ever heard of Photoshop?

Show us the picture where Elie does have a tattoo.

You can't.

He probably was never in a concentration camp in the first place and won the Nobel prize of literature for a book ('Night') he did not write:

http://www.henrymakow.com/translated_from_the_hungarian.html
http://www.henrymakow.com/elie_wiesel_stole_friends_iden.html

(Henry Makow and Gruner are both jewish).

In fact it would be in your interest to denounce Wiesel as an imposter, because if you don't and accept 'Night' as authentic, then you have to explain the total absence of 'gas chambers' in his narative. Can't have that, now can we.

Wiesel ('Messenger To All Humanity') is one big swindle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC5MbVsyFh8

(40,000$ per lecture, all credit cards accepted. "There is no business like shoa business", according to former Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban)
 
Last edited:
Show us the picture where Elie does have a tattoo.

You can't.

...<snip>...


Even if we are to assume that no such picture exists, so what? The evidence of the Holocaust does not rest with one or even a few people. I rests in the convergence of evidence; from physical, to witness, to documentary. Seriously, the crimes of the nazis ended in 1945, and it is currently 2011. Don't you think if your side actually had a compelling case, they would have presented it by now?

I know that your broken worldview makes you incapable of thinking about your own position critically, but you should still try it sometime.
 
Show us the picture where Elie does have a tattoo.

You can't.

That's right. I can't show you a picture of Wiesel's tattoo. Perhaps no photo exists.

Are you laboring under the presumption that because I can't procure a photograph of something, therefore, that thing doesn't exist?

If only that were true. You see: I can't produce a picture of you.

He probably was never in a concentration camp in the first place and won the Nobel prize of literature for a book ('Night') he did not write:

Don't know and don't care.

(Henry Makow and Gruner are both jewish).

Is that supposed to impress me?

In fact it would be in your interest to denounce Wiesel as an imposter, because if you don't and accept 'Night' as authentic, then you have to explain the total absence of 'gas chambers' in his narative. Can't have that, now can we.

I can do that without a problem, actually.

Wiesel was in Monowitz. No gas chambers in Monowitz.

What do I win?

Wiesel ('Messenger To All Humanity') is one big swindle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC5MbVsyFh8

(40,000$ per lecture, all credit cards accepted. "There is no business like shoa business", according to former Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban)

I once heard Abba Eban call you an idiot. I guess I can trust him on that because he was, you know, Jewish...
 
Show us the picture where Elie does have a tattoo.

You can't.

He probably was never in a concentration camp
< snip > < snip > < snip >
Does this one really think that the Wiesel gambit has not been played, and responded to, to the point of ennui? Does he think he has come up with something either novel or telling in this regard? Crikey, I think it's been done to death in this very thread . . .
 
Does this one really think that the Wiesel gambit has not been played, and responded to, to the point of ennui? Does he think he has come up with something either novel or telling in this regard? Crikey, I think it's been done to death in this very thread . . .

So a lie that a "survivor" spews doesn't make any difference? So what we have is spewer, a live Holocaust kingpin "survivor", spewing the "truth" in the form of testimonies by many years dead survivors.
 
So a lie that a "survivor" spews doesn't make any difference? So what we have is spewer, a live Holocaust kingpin "survivor", spewing the "truth" in the form of testimonies by many years dead survivors.
Where did I say that lying makes no difference? What I wrote was that the Wiesel bit has been overdone. It's not new. The positions of people have been repeated over and over. Trotting out something old as though it were a revelation is silly. Wiesel is a figure to be dealt with in the realm of political and popular culture, especially a kind of cult of commemoration that has developed. He is not a source for the facts of the genocide and, having not been interned to my knowledge at Birkenau, and having written fictionalized accounts as I understand it, certainly not a source for the existence of the gas chambers. As The Red Worm notes, the facts don't rise or fall on one person.

Personally, since someone asked, I find Wiesel's approach distasteful, having read some of his op-eds and having seen him on television.
 
You should assist Saggy and Clayton Moore with their creation of a Holocaust denier's timeline. Take note of the date and put this on it:

Pressac, Technique - page 233
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0233.htm

Rudolf tried to hand wave it away and you try to pretend it never existed - or are you also going to deny that you were aware of this study in addition to denying the Holocaust?

To repost the text you quote
Rear view of one of the 145 galvanized plates, perforated by hand, which were set into and nailed to the wooden fresh air ducts in the upper part of Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorien II and III, now kept in the PMO “stores”, Block 25. Toxicological analyses were carried out in 1945 by the Cracow Forensic Institute (7 Copernicus street) on 4 complete plates and 2 damaged ventilation orifices found in the ruins of Krematorium II. After scraping the white substance that covered these objects back to the metal, 7.2 grams of scrapings were collected and subjected to two qualitative analyses, which established the presence of cyanide compounds. The report, signed by Dr Jan Z Robel, was written on 15th December 1945 and transmitted to the Examining Judge, Jan Sehn.

As it happens I think there was one crematorium at Birkenau and my view is that it is more likely than not, that it had a facility for disinfecting uniforms.

As such it does not seem surprising to me that they should find 4 plates and 2 ventilation orifices to test and they should test positive for cyanide. Nothing would have stopped them using parts from one of the many bona-fide fumigation chambers around, as it happens I do think they genuinely tested items from a small facility attached to a 6 muffle crematorium.

Since any metal part from a Zyklon B fumigation chamber would show up positive, I am mystified why you put so much significance on this?
 
Perhaps he's talking about the fact that the grilles were used in forensic testing?

Or maybe the previous document on the same page, which discusses how the Krema buildings would be only temporary? Why would they plan temporary buildings? Huh?

Gee, two big problems on that same page. How sad for you.

Tell me something, Bunny: Why on earth would the Germans use such a large room for delousing when, clearly, much higher concentrations of HCN are necessary to kill lice?

Sorry, I know you hate talking about chemistry...
 
Ever seen a forest fire, DZ? You have to start the fire with dried wood. You can keep it burning with fresh wood.

Says the man who has never tried to keep a fire burning with fresh wood. You can't compare the environment of a holocaust burning pit with a forest fire. And even a forest fire isn't going spread very far if the only fuel is living trees or even fresh cut wood. Even eucalyptus needs to be dry.


Frozen earth wouldn't have been a problem because pit-burning was done primarily in the summer of 1944.

Not at the AR camps.

The water table wasn't a problem because the SS had drained the area prior to building the Kremas. How else would they have been able to construct them underground? You're aware that Krema II was underground right?

The water table was a constant problem. The SS was always draining parts of the camp. You are aware that if you drain a swamp and don't divert the source of the moisture you'll need to continuously drain the swamp to keep it dry?


Please demonstrate this.

Please demonstrate what? That Barbarossa was scheduled early than it's actual start date or that mass graves were dug over the winter at the AR camps?


Or they used a pre-existing ditch, as at Babi Yar.

They didn't have pre-existing ditches at the AR camps large enough to hold all the bodies.
 
Sorry, Tiny, but Gruner and Wiesel were actually photographed next to one another at Buchenwald.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom