Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[TSR]

Yes I can. I did.

.
No, you can't and no, you didn't.

You keep pretending that the bodies of evidence are equivalent, yet cannot produce a single Egyptian or alien document.
.

That's what started this whole pretending to misunderstand/goalpost moving game so common among adherents of your particular brand of woo.

.
LOL. Which is, of course, why you don't want to discuss the evidence itself, but instead try to put words in my mouth.

One contemporary document, please. Without it you have no pretense at a case.
.

 

[Cyrix686]

"I'm a concert pianist." I'm left wondering why on earth an educated concert pianist should know anything greatly about lullabies. We have had cremation experts, corpse disposal experts, a concert pianist expert, that's something new. Except Mr. L hasn't actually offered any insight into lullabies. I'm not discussing the music, I'm looking at the text. Liszt certainly didn't post any examples to compare and contrast. No textual analysis either. Some farting. But he is a concert pianist.

I didn't write that I was an expert on music. Isn't the Western Classical Tradition more your thing, Mr.Concert Pianist? I think so. Or maybe you are playing rock-a-bye baby in the Albert Hall now?

I've no practical idea why you want to insert a pencil in your fundament. There are better things to insert into debates.

The bet is off, it was never on in the first place.

 

[Gwynpaine]

Wiesel again

I raised a particular subject and, foolishly, I thought UKE2se might be in some way trying to stick to the subject. I failed to recognise that he was talking subtext: “lets get back to that discussion we were having about witness credibility, rather than focus on this one admittedly rather incredible witness.” But there I go, putting words in his mouth. His best plan, assuming he can speak for himself, would have been simply to resume that general discussion, which I have not been able to locate. I suppose one good reason that revisionists take Wiesel so seriously is that he is a formidable enemy of theirs, and the wide world takes him very seriously indeed. The only thing they currently have going for them is some ambiguous support from a head of state. I read in today’s Haaretz that forty Nobel prize winners have been collected to support his jihad against Iran.

"

Governments must stop Ahmadinejad and put him on trial at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on charges of open incitement for genocide," he said.

Wiesel blasted Judge Richard Goldstone, saying his report on the Israeli offensive in Gaza was "a crime against the Jewish people.

 

[Liszt]

"I'm a concert pianist." I'm left wondering why on earth an educated concert pianist should know anything greatly about lullabies. We have had cremation experts, corpse disposal experts, a concert pianist expert, that's something new. Except Mr. L hasn't actually offered any insight into lullabies. I'm not discussing the music, I'm looking at the text. Liszt certainly didn't post any examples to compare and contrast. No textual analysis either. Some farting. But he is a concert pianist.

I didn't write that I was an expert on music. Isn't the Western Classical Tradition more your thing, Mr.Concert Pianist? I think so. Or maybe you are playing rock-a-bye baby in the Albert Hall now?

I've no practical idea why you want to insert a pencil in your fundament. There are better things to insert into debates.

The bet is off, it was never on in the first place.

What utter word salad.

 

[Saggy]

I suppose one good reason that revisionists take Wiesel so seriously is that he is a formidable enemy of theirs, and the wide world takes him very seriously indeed.

The revisionist concentrate on Wiesel because he IS the holohoax embodied. He is not a random degenerate, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, the was the first director of the USHMM hoax museum. And he is the public face of the holohoax.

Beyond that, he embodies everything that is incredible about the hoax. His lies are blatant and prima facie absurd. He says the German machine gunners through babies into the air and used them as targets, and no one blinks an eye.

Beyond even that, his lies don't even conform to the official narrative of the holohoax: he says that the Nazis killed the Jews at Auschwitz not by gassing them but by throwing them into burning pits, one for adults one for babies. You have to read this stuff, in 'Night', to realize how preposterous it is. And no one calls him on the fact that the story is first prima facie absurd, and second, not even in agreement with the official version of the hoax.

By all rational thought processes that I can muster, the holohoax establishment should run at full speed from Wiesel, but they don't, they thrust him forward. The hoax is absolutely amazing in its total disregard not only for the truth, but for even any semblance of rationality.

And yet this guy establishes a foundation that every year makes awards for ethics and humanitarianism. It can't get any more freaking absurd.

And yet, we're on the outside, and he is having dinner with Presidents.

 

[Wroclaw]

Assuming they don't go and stack them up in the Bengalo forest before finding a suitable candidate to pin them on.

You lost me.

 

[MG1962]

You lost me.

Its a vague reference to this grub

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpacker_Murders

What that has to do with Holocaust discussion I can't claim any special knowledge to answer that question

 

[Cyrix686]

Wiesel is the Holocaust

:rofl

 

[Cyrix686]

Word salad=out of arguments.

 

[Saggy]

Wiesel is the Holocaust

:rofl

Wiesel is the holohoax. The revisionists didn't choose him, the Jews did. He received the Nobel Peace Prize. He was the first director of the USHMM hoax museum. He travelled to Auschwitz with Oprah to broadcast his degenerate lies. He IS the holohoax.

Second in line Spielberg. His lies were vetted by the USHMM and Yad Vashem, and a host of holohoax professors, and won an Academy award. These include the absurd and degenerate lies of Irene Zizblatt, among others. All this is fully documented here ....

http://www.holocaustdenier.com/2011/01/the-last-days-of-the-big-lie-first-draft/

Here is one of the esteemed holohoax professors that was a 'historical consultant' for 'The Last Days' ....

Michael Berenbaum (born 1945) is an American scholar, professor, rabbi, writer, and film-maker, who specializes in the study of the memorialization of the Holocaust. He is perhaps best known for his work as Deputy Director of the President's Commission on the Holocaust (1979–1980), Project Director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) (1988–1993), and Director of the USHMM's Holocaust Research Institute (1993–1997); as such, Berenbaum played a major role in the creation of the USHMM and the content of its permanent exhibition. From 1997 - 1999, Berenbaum served as President and CEO of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, and subsequently (and currently) as Director of the Sigi Ziering Institute: Exploring the Ethical and Religious Implications of the Holocaust, located at the American Jewish University (formerly known as the University of Judaism), in Los Angeles, CA.

There is not a shred of integrity, as commonly perceived by non-Zionists, in the entire holohoax establishment. They will vouch for any lie, regardless that it is obviously preposterous, in fact, the more preposterous, the better.

 

[Cyrix686]

Seven-up. We all know what the denier opinion is upon Wiesel. Stop spamming your hd links.

There are 200 witnesses that you have apparently not discussed or touched with poles of a ten-foot variety. Last time I looked Elie Wiesel was not one of those 200 witnesses.

 

[Corsair 115]

They will vouch for any lie, regardless that it is obviously preposterous, in fact, the more preposterous, the better.

Speaking of preposterous lies, do you have any evidence yet to present which proves how Jews control all the media? And not just in the U.S. but around the world?

If you don't, then by your own comment, "They [Holocaust deniers] will vouch for any lie, regardless that it is obviously preposterous, in fact, the more preposterous [Jews controlling all media everywhere], the better."

 

[LemmyCaution]

What forum is this? Stormfront?

Come on Mr Caution, just admit it you pinched it from the 9/11 forums and lets all move on and discuss more relevant things.

Stop being silly. It is Rodoh, the forum I've been admonished not to link to, as you well know. You know the very threads I am referring to - the longest of them entitled "Photos of mass graves containing Jewish women and children mostly without the, er, children." And why ever would you argue that I cribbed from Websites I don't read what I posted about in 2009 at Rodoh? I refer, of course, to my post #264, for example, in that thread, which you, of course, participated in.

When you are out of arguments you 1) resort to ad hominems, in this case trying to make out that not only am I a smarty pants but I am also a cribber and 2) handwaving important points away as not relevant. You may believe that it is not relevant that you guys work with copies of copies in deciding about forgery of photos; to anyone who knows anything about photographic technique, your doing so is most relevant.

 

[uke2se]

I do not understand UK2se post re Wiesel, which is rather free of detail, but I gather he does not believe that Wiesel was an imposter. Neither do I. The precise question is whether Wiesel was telling the truth about that photo. UK2SE is saying that to his eyes the mature puzzled face could belong to the sixteen-year old Weisel. But I can understand that he does not want to talk about it

You would understand it if you had read any other posts in this thread.

200+ named witnesses. Tens of thousands of unnamed ones. Get crackin'.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I raised a particular subject and, foolishly, I thought UKE2se might be in some way trying to stick to the subject. I failed to recognise that he was talking subtext: “lets get back to that discussion we were having about witness credibility, rather than focus on this one admittedly rather incredible witness.” But there I go, putting words in his mouth. His best plan, assuming he can speak for himself, would have been simply to resume that general discussion, which I have not been able to locate. I suppose one good reason that revisionists take Wiesel so seriously is that he is a formidable enemy of theirs, and the wide world takes him very seriously indeed. The only thing they currently have going for them is some ambiguous support from a head of state. I read in today’s Haaretz that forty Nobel prize winners have been collected to support his jihad against Iran.

"

I put words into uke2se's mouth, of course, having followed this thread and thus understanding the reference to 200 witnesses to link to the discussion of Saggy's point that there is not a single credible Jewish witness to the Holocaust. It is rather simple-minded, I think, to introduce a witness, Wiesel, whom deniers find not credible, and then blinker your eyes to the obvious connection to the ongoing discussion of witness credibility. That said, and as I posted, uke2se is the best person what he meant. I simply didn't understand how you took his posts to say what you found them to say.

Note: uke2se's explanatory post just beat mine . . .

 

[LemmyCaution]

Seven-up. We all know what the denier opinion is upon Wiesel. Stop spamming your hd links.

There are 200 witnesses that you have apparently not discussed or touched with poles of a ten-foot variety. Last time I looked Elie Wiesel was not one of those 200 witnesses.

And there is Oscar Strawczynski, who meets the standard Saggy himself set, and on whom he remains silent.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
No, you can't and no, you didn't.

You keep pretending that the bodies of evidence are equivalent, yet cannot produce a single Egyptian or alien document.
.

You're probably right. I can't produce an Egyptian or alien document easily--that's for sure. But so what? I can apply the same standard of evidence that Dr. Shermer applies to the holocaust which is, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

.
LOL. Which is, of course, why you don't want to discuss the evidence itself, but instead try to put words in my mouth.

One contemporary document, please. Without it you have no pretense at a case.
.

We're not discussing the evidence itself. Please try to keep up.

 

[Dogzilla]

I raised a particular subject and, foolishly, I thought UKE2se might be in some way trying to stick to the subject. I failed to recognise that he was talking subtext: “lets get back to that discussion we were having about witness credibility, rather than focus on this one admittedly rather incredible witness.” But there I go, putting words in his mouth. His best plan, assuming he can speak for himself, would have been simply to resume that general discussion, which I have not been able to locate. I suppose one good reason that revisionists take Wiesel so seriously is that he is a formidable enemy of theirs, and the wide world takes him very seriously indeed. The only thing they currently have going for them is some ambiguous support from a head of state. I read in today’s Haaretz that forty Nobel prize winners have been collected to support his jihad against Iran.

"

This is true. The believers like to point out that Wiesel is rarely used as a primary source among holocaust scholars. They seem to be correct. Which makes it all the more mysterious that "Night" might possibly be the most widely read book about the holocaust if we look at required reading lists on various holocaust and Genocide Studies class syllabi.

 

[uke2se]

You're probably right. I can't produce an Egyptian or alien document easily--that's for sure. But so what? I can apply the same standard of evidence that Dr. Shermer applies to the holocaust which is, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.



We're not discussing the evidence itself. Please try to keep up.

Is Dr. Shermer a holocaust historian? No.

Now prove that historians specialized in the holocaust hold different standards of evidence for the holocaust than for other historical events.

Then prove an allied WWII atrocity to the same standard as you want us to prove the holocaust.

 

[Saggy]

Speaking of preposterous lies, do you have any evidence yet to present which proves how Jews control all the media? And not just in the U.S. but around the world?

The evidence is all around you, everyday. The fact that liars like Irene Zisblatt and Michael Berenbaum, Yale prof. who vetted 'The Last Days', and Elie Wiesare taken at face value and not ridiculed and exposed as the obvious frauds they are in the media is prima facie evidence that it is Zionist controlled.