Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
little grey rabbit said:
as for naming names, I think Mr Caution is too enamoured of the Great Man view of history. The emplotment most revisionists view the hoax consists of not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.

Dunno where I dragged that up from, I think it just came to me.
Click to expand...
And yet names are named wherever you dragged that from, because people did things to make things happen. And where those names are named, evidence is cited (documents being quite prevalent there).

Of course, I would like you to show where I adopted a great men point of view. I asked about the actors--the main participants . . . leaders and participants--and their actions, not about biographies and certainly not about biographies of the charismatic and the powerful, and I attributed no historiographic point of view to the narrative but simply asked for Saggy's point of view, which I don't know, do I?

Oh I get it, you were trying to be clever and to use my request to make a different point. I see, but it still amounts to you guys continuing to look for ways of dodging a most reasonable request.

That said, I can see why: pinning down specifics of the hoaxing is something you need to avoid--or to dissipate into a the fog of caricature or vague assertion.

Besides which, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QjnipIWggc
 
Last edited:
Dogzilla said:
I refuse to believe that something that is impossible is possible. I guess you could call that an argument from personal incredulity. Tell me, if somebody told you something that you knew was impossible, would you believe it anyway?
Click to expand...
You are confusing your naive view of common sense with an understanding of what is possible.

Clayton Moore has tried this gambit repeatedly--and has yet to present a single example of a major part of the history that is not possible. What he has shown is that he doesn't understand how things (e.g., deportations, managing camps, etc.) were achieved, which is different to their being impossible.

So now it's your turn: explain to us how a significant genocidal action or Nazi war crime was impossible.
 
I still have yet to see Gene Alley's listing and explication of the good points made in this thread by deniers. Have I missed a key post here?
 
LemmyCaution said:
I still have yet to see Gene Alley's listing and explication of the good points made in this thread by deniers. Have I missed a key post here?
Click to expand...

No, you haven't missed anything. Perhaps Gene is compiling a list as we speak. After all, he said it would take him - what was it? 50 hours?
 
Cyrix686 said:
And why not instead of being lazy and dumping link after link, none of which are interesting - paste a few extracts for the flavour of where you think that Butz has nailed it.
Click to expand...

Here is a winner .... Butz describes Mickey Markus...

(wiki) - "Marcus was subsequently named chief of the War Crimes Division, planning legal and security procedures for the Nuremberg trials."

and his demise ....

(wiki again, no need to track down the passage from 'The Hoax ...') -

"David Daniel 'Mickey' Marcus (22 February 1901–10 June 1948) was a United States Army colonel who assisted Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and who became Israel's first general (Hebrew: Aluf). He was killed by friendly fire, when he was mistaken for an enemy infiltrator while returning to Israeli positions at night."

Nuremberg provided the underpinnings for the hoax, and no one played a more important role than future Israeli general Mickey Marcus.
 
Last edited:
little grey rabbit said:
I think he took the oath on the Talmud or Torah in the Trial of Deborah Lipstadt. Rather appropriate really as I believe the Talmud says it is OK to deceive the Goyim.
Click to expand...

Really? They brought all 20+ volumes to the court? Did they use a barrel?

Court oaths are sworn on holy texts. For Jews this would be the old testament, which they would refer to as the bible.
 
Saggy said:
Here is a winner .... Butz describes Mickey Markus...

(wiki) - "Marcus was subsequently named chief of the War Crimes Division, planning legal and security procedures for the Nuremberg trials."

and his demise ....

(wiki again, no need to track down the passage from 'The Hoax ...') -

"David Daniel 'Mickey' Marcus (22 February 1901–10 June 1948) was a United States Army colonel who assisted Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and who became Israel's first general (Hebrew: Aluf). He was killed by friendly fire, when he was mistaken for an enemy infiltrator while returning to Israeli positions at night."
Click to expand...

What argument do you think Butz is putting forth with those passages? They seem biographical in nature to me.

Saggy said:
Nuremberg provided the underpinnings for the hoax, and no one played a more important role than future Israeli general Mickey Marcus.
Click to expand...

Well, we certainly don't learn that from the passages you quoted via wiki proxy from Butz book.
 
Dogzilla said:
I don't see the relevance of discussing various heating values. How are they related to the ease with which naked bodies burn?
Click to expand...

But you do see the relevance of scale as I pointed out to you?
Do you agree that scale matters?

another hint.

What effect has a strong wind on a burning candle? and what is the effect of strong wind on a huge wildfire?


Do you still think that denierbuds experiment has any significance in proving it impossible to burn large quantities of bodies on huge pyres?
 
Just a note: the Hindu's have been burning millions of bodies for thousands of years, with anywhere from 20 to 300 kilos of wood (depends on how rich you are) - reducing the body to ash before committing those ashes to the Ganges. I've seen them doing this on a number of occassions and they don't use gasoline.
 
LemmyCaution said:
You are confusing your naive view of common sense with an understanding of what is possible.

Clayton Moore has tried this gambit repeatedly--and has yet to present a single example of a major part of the history that is not possible. What he has shown is that he doesn't understand how things (e.g., deportations, managing camps, etc.) were achieved, which is different to their being impossible.

So now it's your turn: explain to us how a significant genocidal action or Nazi war crime was impossible.
Click to expand...

Magic wands were never available to perform tasks and labor in the history of history.

Previously I posted the word leichenkeller which is German for mortuaries. The holohoaxers say it was a gas chamber. Why?
 
Ignorantbystander said:
Do you still think that denierbuds experiment has any significance in proving it impossible to burn large quantities of bodies on huge pyres?
Click to expand...

10 years ago there were massive pyres across the UK, burning large numbers of dead animals pretty successfully.

Hans said:
Just a note: the Hindu's have been burning millions of bodies for thousands of years, with anywhere from 20 to 300 kilos of wood (depends on how rich you are) - reducing the body to ash before committing those ashes to the Ganges. I've seen them doing this on a number of occassions and they don't use gasoline.
Click to expand...

The is what I don't understand. This has been going on, as you say, for millennia, and yet Dogzilla is arguing it can't be done based solely on some ridiculous "experiment" on a beach...
 
Hans said:
Just a note: the Hindu's have been burning millions of bodies for thousands of years, with anywhere from 20 to 300 kilos of wood (depends on how rich you are) - reducing the body to ash before committing those ashes to the Ganges. I've seen them doing this on a number of occassions and they don't use gasoline.
Click to expand...

They don't use gasoline, but they do use ghee, i.e., clarified butter, which is poured over the body by the mourners during the cremation.
 
Dogzilla said:
I don't see the relevance of discussing various heating values. How are they related to the ease with which naked bodies burn?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?

The more energy released by a fuel when it burns, the better and more efficiently it is going to burn things.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Previously I posted the word leichenkeller which is German for mortuaries. The holohoaxers say it was a gas chamber. Why?
Click to expand...

That would be a combination of a few factors:

(1) The clear indication that there is cyanide on the walls of that chamber, identified in at least three separate tests over about 50 years. Too much cyanide for it to correlate with the single fumigation of that room notated in the records, and far too little for it to have been used as a fumigation chamber on a regular basis.

(2) The eyewitness testimony, which is fairly copious.

(3) The fact that the Nazis also, from time to time, referred to that room as a Vergasungskeller or a Gaskeller. Something having to do with gas was done in there.

(4) No Nazis tried for crimes at Birkenau denied that it was a gas chamber.

(5) The fact that over a million Jews were sent to that camp and then disappeared entirely.

(6) Crematoria that could incinerate thousands of bodies daily — enough power to cremate the entire population of the camp in six weeks' time.

(7) There's a room that had been repeatedly identified as an "undressing room" next to the gas chamber. Why if it was a morgue?

(8) They ordered shower heads for that room also. Why if it was a morgue?

That's why.
 
uke2se said:
Evidence?

Of course not.
Click to expand...

It's amazing to me how frequently anti-semites cite [read: deliberately misinterpret] passages from the Talmud as evidence of Jewish malevolence and duplicity.
As though more than 5% of all Jews [if not fewer] have actually read the Talmud.
 
Hans said:
Just a note: the Hindu's have been burning millions of bodies for thousands of years, with anywhere from 20 to 300 kilos of wood (depends on how rich you are) - reducing the body to ash before committing those ashes to the Ganges. I've seen them doing this on a number of occassions and they don't use gasoline.
Click to expand...

So you're saying 44 - 660 pounds of wood per body? Lets say 150. 100,000 cremations is 15 million pounds of wood? Not including the wands to cut down the trees and bring them to the site. Makes you wonder what those laborers were doing before they started chopping down, cutting up, and moving those trees?

Which should be a basic concern, but isn't, of these self proclaimed historians. What were all the German's associated
with these new "death camps" doing before 1942 that was no longer a priority to the war effort?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom