Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Mondial]

How The British Obtained The Confessions of Rudolf Hoess www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html An interesting article from Robert Faurisson. Hoess was one of the commandants of Auschwitz and his statements about this concentration camp have been used by holocaust propagandists. But anyone with an ounce of legal knowledge would know that a confession extracted under torture isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

[MG1962]

How The British Obtained The Confessions of Rudolf Hoess www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html An interesting article from Robert Faurisson. Hoess was one of the commandants of Auschwitz and his statements about this concentration camp have been used by holocaust propagandists. But anyone with an ounce of legal knowledge would know that a confession extracted under torture isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Written by a Professor of French Literature.............so it must be true

 

[uke2se]

How The British Obtained The Confessions of Rudolf Hoess [snipped link to Nazi website] An interesting article from Robert Faurisson. Hoess was one of the commandants of Auschwitz and his statements about this concentration camp have been used by holocaust propagandists. But anyone with an ounce of legal knowledge would know that a confession extracted under torture isn't worth the paper it is written on.

You just thought you'd pop in with that tid-bit of "information" as if it hadn't been brought up in this thread over and over again?

Really, these so called "revisionists" are as stuck as the twoofers are. Probably because it's the same people in both cases.

 

[Mondial]

Gosh, thanks for that. I certainly enjoyed Graf & Mattogno's "Treblinka: Transit camp or Extermination camp". After reading through all those pages of rubbish Graf & Mottogno reach this amazing conclusion "Above all, it is entirely unclear where the Jews deported to Treblinka ultimately wound up"

This is odd considering the Station Master at Treblinka, Franciszek Zabecki kept the train records and no trains with settlers left Treblinka. I guess that's why Graf and Mottogno don't mention Zabecki in their "work"...

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/t/

( By the way Graf lives in Iran. PO Box 19395/7161, Tehran He ran from Switzerland 12 years ago. )

"unclear where the Jews deported to Treblinka ultimately wound up". By the same token you haven't proved conclusively 100% that they were "gassed" either. See "One Third of the Holocaust" documentary at www.holocaustdenialvideos.com Jurgen Graf left Switzerland because that country has a totalitarian law which imprisons people for questioning the holocaust.

 

[uke2se]

"unclear where the Jews deported to Treblinka ultimately wound up". By the same token you haven't proved conclusively 100% that they were "gassed" either. See "One Third of the Holocaust" documentary at [snipped link to Nazi website] Jurgen Graf left Switzerland because that country has a totalitarian law which imprisons people for questioning the holocaust.

Ah, the "One Third of the Holocaust" "documentary". Again, you stick it in like we haven't already been over it.

Face it: you are wrong.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

You probably need to learn a little more about the words you use

Prima facie

at first appearance; at first view, before investigation.
You so you either dont understand the word or you admit your assertion will not stand up to investigation

[off topic]

At least as used in legal writing, prima facie doesn't imply that an observation or presumption necessarily will not stand up to investigation, only that it might not stand up to investigation. The presumption is a rebuttable presumption.

[/off topic]

EDIT: to add that I've always been afraid to enter this thread but was feeling daring tonight. My fear was well-founded.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

"unclear where the Jews deported to Treblinka ultimately wound up". By the same token you haven't proved conclusively 100% that they were "gassed" either. See "One Third of the Holocaust" documentary at www.holocaustdenialvideos.com Jurgen Graf left Switzerland because that country has a totalitarian law which imprisons people for questioning the holocaust.

No. I have given you hard evidence that Graf and Mottogno left out hard evidence that was contradictory to their holocaust denial belief system and still were unable to reach a conclusion. Therefore this paper is a waste of time and mere propaganda that holocaust deniers like you link without reading yourselves.

You will now return my favour by listing the conventional history books that explain the various use of gas chambers and show what evidence you think they left out to reach their conclusions. The evidence for gas chambers is vast, varied and substantial.

As for Graf may I ask you to read his charges and inform me if he was only charged for his holocaust beliefs. (I already know the answer but it seems you do not)

 

[Matthew Ellard]

How The British Obtained The Confessions of Rudolf Hoess www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html An interesting article from Robert Faurisson. Hoess was one of the commandants of Auschwitz and his statements about this concentration camp have been used by holocaust propagandists. But anyone with an ounce of legal knowledge would know that a confession extracted under torture isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Again this is myth spread by holocaust deniers....

From Richard Butler's bookWe sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shire in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep,
Here is a photo of Hoess exercising wearing a standard British Army jumper in British hands during the interrogation period.
http://www.cwporter.com/SCAN 40/beeld-15.jpg

So um...that's not true is it. I also ask you to explain how the British beat Hoess around the head with axe handles yet here he is without a mark appearing in court.
http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/3/3b/Rudolf_höß.jpg

http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-4/hoess_rudolf-COM-Auschwitz.GIF

http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/public/cms/70/92/169/379/8v3oAX_web.jpg

Please explain in detail how you think Hoess was beaten up to obtain a confession and your evidence for this.

 

[Clayton Moore]

http://www.holohoax101.com/102/
In case you forgot the 262,077 number, verified by the Red Cross, which was the total number of ALL prisoners, not just Jewish people, who died in the camps.

Based on the Bad Arolsen documents, the Nazi documents captured by the Russians, and their own records, in 1984 the Red Cross has estimated the TOTAL Red Cross estimate number of deaths for all prisoners, including but not limited to Jews, in Nazi concentration camps to be 262,077. The authenticity of the estimates was verified in the trial of Ernst Zundel by the director of the International Tracing Service, see http://www.zundelsite.org/english/101/english1013.html and http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=120 and http://www.zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd10biedermann.html

 

[uke2se]

[Link to Nazi site snipped] In case you forgot the 262,077 number, verified by the Red Cross, which was the total number of ALL prisoners, not just Jewish people, who died in the camps.

This outright and unabashed lie has been dealt with before.

Like I said, the deniers are stuck. Must be frustrating to harbor that much hatred and then be ridiculed when you try in vain to justify it.

 

[Nick Terry]

For the vast body of photographs and documents which deniers declare to be forgeries - under the doctrine of IFWF - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of forgery or tampering. A contrasting photographic example is the famous Yezhov photo as well as photos of Trotsky. In these cases, we can see, from negatives, original and altered version. Much of what passes for photo analysis among deniers is conspiracy theorizing about digital versions of photographs, with all the problems inherent in using these kinds of copies. That there are many Holocaust photographs incorrectly captioned or used on certain Websites without care doesn't speak to the photographs themselves, nor to scholars' uses of these documents; rather, it speaks to the nature of the "democratic" Web. Janina Struk's Photographing the Holocaust is a good treatment o the use of photographs in constructing historical understanding of this period and a good caution against "fundamentalist" uses of photography. That said, along with other sources, as with the Liepaja photos or the famous Birkenau SK photos, or photos documenting mass graves, this kind of evidence is quite useful and not so glibly dismissed as our deniers pretend with their Moscow Forgery Factories and other flights of fancy. In the case of Liepaja, for example, we know a great deal about the shooting of the photos, including the brand of camera, and how they came to be printed, along with narrative accounts of the actions which the photos record. Deniers would not be taken as charlatans and clowns if they were to document their claims about forgeries in the same manner. That they don't speaks to the absence of evidence for their claims as much as their incompetence in this area.

I have just finished reading Frank Dikoetter's prize-winning book Mao's Great Famine, which presents a mass of new archival evidence on the Great Leap Forward. Dikoetter argues the death toll was even higher than assumed, of the order of 45 million people, but this may be too high; it matters not, as there is general agreement that the numbers who perished ran into eight figures.

The book has plates with a variety of photos, but it was noted that there is apparently not a single known photograph from the period of the Great Leap Forward which was not taken to serve propaganda purposes; not one single photo that survives which was taken by an ordinary person. This might sound far-fetched, until you read about how villagers had to share a single threading needle for most of the Sixties, because all the other needles had been confiscated in the GLF so they could be collectivised or melted down for the iron and steel drive that was one of the crazier features of this era.

Mao's China is hardly alone in this regard. There are virtually no photos of Stalinist crimes, very few of the Armenian genocide and essentially none of the Pol Pot regime's years of terror taken as they happened. But plenty of propaganda images presenting an entirely false impression of life in those years. In most of these cases there are not really that many post-regime change photos of the worst sites of extinction.

 

[Clayton Moore]

This outright and unabashed lie has been dealt with before.

Like I said, the deniers are stuck. Must be frustrating to harbor that much hatred and then be ridiculed when you try in vain to justify it.

The haters are the Wiesels, the Wiesenthals, Spielbergs, and the rest of the Holocaustics. They hate non Jews and deign to tell the truth to deceive non Jews and profit from that deceit.

 

[Tolls]

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.

I googled holocaust syllabus, English language only and no other restrictions. I looked to see if "Night" (or excerpt) was one of the books among the required, recommended, or suggested reading lists for the class.

Bit of a change of criteria there.

 

[Nick Terry]

Well, if the bodies weren't removed from the gas chamber, nobody else could be gassed until the dead people inside rotted away. That would have effectively shut down the holocaust.

Your claim wasn't restricted to unloading the gas chambers. It's telling how you snipped the part of my reply where I asked whether Jews drove the trains or helped load the rifles of the guards. Evidently we are witnessing the start of yet another trademark Dogzilla retreat as a bloviating hyperbolic claim is cut down to size.

Yes. SK and Judenrat could have refused to do the tasks assigned to them. They certainly could have refused to share in the spoils. Any who didn't are clearly guilty of mass murder--and mass murder of their own to boot.

Utter nonsense. The Judenraete did not react uniformly to Nazi demands. Some refused and were shot for their pains, some committed suicide, some used all of the extremely limited bargaining power they had to reduce the impact of Nazi demands, some cooperated with resistance groups. The Nazis used a combination of deception and massive violence to carry out the deportations. In Lodz, the early deportations were organised with a great deal of cooperation from Rumkowski, who is one of the few council leaders who is sometimes considered to be 'guilty of mass murder'. But the September 1942 deportations, despite Rumkowski's attempts to appeal to the survivors on pragmatic grounds (sacrifice this group to save the rest), ended up in a bloodbath due to non-cooperation, as by then the ghetto was fully aware of what was intended for them. Some councils elsewhere cooperated before they knew exactly what was in store, others weren't even given the chance to cooperate.

The Sonderkommandos had a very simple choice, cooperate or die. Many chose not to cooperate, which is why we have reports of resistance, escapes, mutinies, mass refusals of certain contingents, as well as the fact (which is rather well documented) that three of the death camp crews revolted. The Sonderkommandos "shared in the spoils" in order to survive. Most, however, did not.

The theory behind the latest Demanjuk prosecution is that anybody who worked in one of the pure death camps was complicit in mass murder. That would mean EVERYBODY unless there's a double standard going on.

Yes, there's the easily understood standard whereby the people with the guns are held to be more guilty than the people without guns. It was exceedingly difficult for any German or Ukrainian to serve at BST without pulling the triggers on their pistols or rifles. This was not a dilemma faced by the Sonderkommandos, who didn't have any pistols or rifles until they revolted and broke out of two of the camps.

I'm not sure why you are assuming that the Demjanjuk judgement is some kind of new standard when it is in fact somewhat controversial and will be contested on appeal, by historians, etc. Of course, it does help you create yet another tedious strawman and paint a black-and-white picture, but unfortunately most commentators are perfectly aware that there was a grey zone of moral responsibility which was inhabited by people like the Sonderkommandos, who themselves were often wracked with guilt because of their decision to try to survive and their awareness that they had helped indirectly in the destruction of so many people.

From what we know, about 800 Trawnikis served at BST over the course of two years; more than 40 died after being shot trying to escape, or after mutinying. Some succeeded in deserting, but on the whole 90% obeyed. The number of Jews forced into the Sonderkommando role at those three camps could have been well over 10,000, and fewer than 150 survived, all after escaping or revolting.

 

[little grey rabbit]

From what we know, about 800 Trawnikis served at BST over the course of two years; more than 40 died after being shot trying to escape, or after mutinying. Some succeeded in deserting, but on the whole 90% obeyed. The number of Jews forced into the Sonderkommando role at those three camps could have been well over 10,000, and fewer than 150 survived, all after escaping or revolting.

Could have been well over 10000? What is this meaningless drivel.

How's your book coming along? If you want a 2000-3000 footnoted outline of Krema Denial to help pad it out, I am happy to oblige. But it would only be as a personal favour as I am rather well disposed to you.

 

[little grey rabbit]

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.
.

Matey, I had a rodoh link in my signature for 4 months or so and no one complained. Probably you were linking to chimp insults. If you have a relevant, non insulting post you want to link to, no one is going to object.

"Photos of mass graves containing Jewish women and children" did not center around matters of digitalisation but the quaintly named Soviet Reprographic Effect, whereby WW2 era Soviet printing gave a photos a distinctly "painted" appearance, so that it would be difficult to know whether the photo was genuine or not. Many pages were devoted to "The Scream" photo from Kharkov, with the final upshot being the photo was essentially reliable although it had been rather clumsily and melodramatic touched up. So I afraid no issues with artefacts of digitalisation.

Again, you stole this from other discussions on JREF and it has no particular relevance to revisionism. Still, at least you have lived in lots of exotic places.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Well, you got the definition right, congrats. Wiesel's statements are preposterous, physically impossible, and prima facie absurd. You don't have to investigate, that is the point. When someone tells you that Nazis threw babies into the air and used them as targets for machine gunners, you know he is joking, or is a degenerate liar. You don't have to investigate. When he then tells you that bodies were thrown into a burning pit to be killed and cremated, you don't have to investigate, it is physically impossible. The lies are absurd. Ridiculous. A moments rational thought is all that it takes to know it.

Wiesel is no different that Zisblatt. Or Meuller, or Bomba, or Wiernik, all their 'testimony' is prima facie absurd. NO INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY. There is nothing to investigate.

I know that we've been over this but why are the things you mention physically impossible? To throw someone into a burning pit and cremate the body in the same fire is not physically impossible. The mind staggers and it is difficult to accept such an action - but that is different to its being physically impossible and prima facie a degnerate lie, absurd, and ridiculous. Rational thought, in fact, tells you that when such claims are made, and similar claims are made in number, then investigation is called for.

Testimony and documents concerning Auschwitz show that daily life there was not characterized by constant random and chaotic acts of sudden and brutal personal cruelty toward the inmates. (The major violence consisted in the terms and conditions of their incarceration and the regularized mass murder, including ramp selections, gassings, medical experiments, and so on, not individual acts of sadism.) That does not mean that the conditions did not give individuals with the proper mindset license to act sadistically and carry out "excesses." Flogging and other violent forms of punishment, including the death sentence for camp infractions, were enforced. Atrocities, although not constant, helped terrorize the prisoners, adding to the official regime's impact. We've already been through this, when guys were learned about a very plausible and documented atrocity, which you doubted on physical grounds, the suspension of prisoners on stakes at Buchenwald. Other excessive acts included dog cells, standing cells, sports, and roll call brutalities.

At the Auschwitz trial, for example, witnesses testified that defendant Oswald Kaduk 1) trampled a rabbi to death, 2) strangled inmates with a walking cane, 3) drowned inmates, 4) engaged in the "sport" of cap throwing in which victims were made to throw their caps into restricted areas and shot if they followed the order to retrieve the hat and also if they disobeyed the order and kept out of the restricted area, and 5) sadistically abused women by harming their genitalia. Testimony showed that defendant Stefan Baretski had organized a "rabbit hunt" of incoming Salonika Jews who'd survived selection in which the Jews were ordered to remove their caps and those who reacted too slowly were shot to death at the wire fence. The witness testimony against Baretski included that from Otto Wolken, prisoner #128,828 and an Austrian who worked in the hospital and happened to have kept and retained notes about what he witnessed in his time in the camp. Baretski was also convicted of stomping a Musselmann to death, of shooting at least five prisoners to death who failed to keep up in "sports" he'd ordered, and of drowning four prisoners in a water tank in June 1944. Defendant Herbert Scherpe was one of those convicted in the killing of young boys brought to the camp from Zamosc in 1943. The boys were murdered by phenol injections, usually administered by Josef Klehr. The first group, about 60, were killed however by Scherpe, Klehr being absent when the transport arrived. Scherpe's conviction was for aiding and abetting, in the words of the judgment, because "The fact that [the victims] were killed as members of the Polish nation . . . shows clearly not only that there was no death sentence against them, but that their right to live was no longer acknowledged. . . . Defendant Scherpe killed the children under orders. . . . The defendant recognized that the killing of the children was a universal crimes. This is clearly shown by the facts that already before the killing action he protested to the camp doctor Rohde and that he discontinued the killing. . . . He followed the order only reluctantly." Scherpe admitted the killings, but also witnesses testified to them, including Tadeusz Pazcula, Stanislaw Glowa, and Stanislaw Klodzinski who added of Scherpe's actions after a second day of killings was ordered that "I want to note that SS-SDG Scherpe refused to undertake these injections." Finally, numerous witnesses, and some victims, testified to the torture device devised and used by defendant Boger, called the Boger swing, a "low trestle . . . with an iron rod on its back; there was a person tied to the rod by his hands and feet, and his head was hanging down." Boger used this device in what the Gestapo called intensified interrogations. Boger's victims often were killed during interrogation, and many of those who survived were shot at the black wall in the Stammlager. Summarizing witness testimony, the judgment said that "Boger was one of the most zealous of the SS men in the bunker evacuations. He hated Poles, and they constituted the majority of the arrested prisoners. . . . It filled him with a deep sense of satisfaction that he produced fear and terror in his prisoners." Boger admitted to black wall shootings and participating in ramp selections. He said that he was under orders. The court found him guilty of personal excesses in his use of violence and cruelty. The list of his convictions ran to 20 pages.

Guess who did not testify at the Auschwitz trial? And guess about how many witnesses did testify at this trial?

 

[LemmyCaution]

There's a one volume "student edition" of DEJ. It's pretty much the text of the three volume set without the footnotes. I personally do not harp on Wiesel as much as some people do because I don't think much of him. But I do reject the notion that he is a nobody in the world of the holocaust. I am a nobody in the world of the holocaust. You are a nobody in the world of the holocaust. Elie Wiesel is the living embodiment of the holocaust in popular culture. The fact that he is considered so unimportant among holocaust scholars is just one of those bizarre disconnects between popular and scholar in the holocaust world.

When you say you rejected doing what I did because of too small a sample, as lacking controls, and as without sufficient context, don't you mean that you started doing what I did and found out that your results wouldn't support your view?

No, I didn't bother doing what you did. I didn't want to waste my time. And I concluded that doing what you did would be a waste of time. I decided instead to finish a book of essays on Polish and Jewish views of the Holocaust in Poland, which seemed better grounded and more to my interest.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Night used widely. But I don't know what it proves without a better method than Google look ups. It is true that there is a student edition of Hilberg, but it dates from the 80s and is not well thought of.

I don't argue that Wiesel is a nobody; my point, which you didn't reply to, is that his fame and his use have nothing to do with the actual research and the results of scholarship on the Holocaust. "Using" Wiesel goes to the impact and uses of the Holocaust in contemporary culture, not to whether it occurred. Deniers mix these two issues.

For the record, I haven't read Wiesel's books, only op-eds in local newspaper when I lived in Boston. I did not like his approach or style and found no reason to read his works. His writing played absolutely no role in forming my views and understanding of the Holocaust. I am a nobody, but I would bet that the vast majority of somebodies could say something similar. That you guys focus on him makes you look foolish.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Matey, I had a rodoh link in my signature for 4 months or so and no one complained. Probably you were linking to chimp insults. If you have a relevant, non insulting post you want to link to, no one is going to object.

Good for you. I pointed to Rodoh to give an example of an ethnic group that had lost all self-respect and got a public reprimand: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7334497&postcount=3546. I have no clue whether chimp pictures featured in the posts I linked to, but the stated reason for the warning was that we here have plenty to discuss without bringing in other forums. What can I say? I was asked not to link to Rodoh, so I didn't.

"Photos of mass graves containing Jewish women and children" did not center around matters of digitalisation but the quaintly named Soviet Reprographic Effect, whereby WW2 era Soviet printing gave a photos a distinctly "painted" appearance, so that it would be difficult to know whether the photo was genuine or not. Many pages were devoted to "The Scream" photo from Kharkov, with the final upshot being the photo was essentially reliable although it had been rather clumsily and melodramatic touched up. So I afraid no issues with artefacts of digitalisation.

Again, you stole this from other discussions on JREF and it has no particular relevance to revisionism. Still, at least you have lived in lots of exotic places.

Prove the lie that I stole something from other forums on JREF and have used it in debating the Holocaust. Do I visit other forums on JREF? Do you have proof that I do? Or are you just making things up to cover up your own lack of honesty and flailing about?

Here are some links to what I wrote on Rodoh in 2009 in the Photos of Mass Graves thread (I am hoping that these links are ok as they are responsive to your lying about me):

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/sreply/2...aves-containing-Jewish-women--children----er-

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/sreply/2...aves-containing-Jewish-women--children----er-

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/sreply/2...aves-containing-Jewish-women--children----er-

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/sreply/2...aves-containing-Jewish-women--children----er-

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/sreply/2...aves-containing-Jewish-women--children----er-

You were a part of this discussion. I focused on the Skede beach killings at Liepaja, as I commented above, not on Kharkov, and introduced comments on deniers' uses of Web copies for purposes these copies cannot support. Like it or not, that's what I did on that thread in 2009. Also, the discussion included examples beyond Kharkov, as you well know, and my posts were mostly about these other areas of discussion.

Your long paragraph on Soviet reprographic patina is beside the point I was making and beside your lying accusation that I stole material from elsewhere on JREF. I joined JREF this year. Please show us how the posts I made in 2009 on Rodoh dealing with analysis of Holocaust photos were influenced by a forum I'd not joined and don't even recall visiting until this year. Cite specifics.

Out of arguments, you trump up lying accusations and what you take to be telling insults about my personal life. By doing this, you reveal the lack of substance in your claims.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Good for you. I pointed to Rodoh to give an example of an ethnic group that had lost all self-respect and got a public reprimand: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7334497&postcount=3546. I have no clue whether chimp pictures featured in the posts I linked to, but the stated reason for the warning was that we here have plenty to discuss without bringing in other forums. What can I say? I was asked not to link to Rodoh, so I didn't.

Prove the lie that I stole something from other forums on JREF and have used it in debating the Holocaust. Do I visit other forums on JREF? Do you have proof that I do? Or are you just making things up to cover up your own lack of honesty and flailing about?

Here are some links to what I wrote on Rodoh in 2009 in the Photos of Mass Graves thread (I am hoping that these links are ok as they are responsive to your lying about me):

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/sreply/2...aves-containing-Jewish-women--children----er-

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/sreply/2...aves-containing-Jewish-women--children----er-

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/sreply/2...aves-containing-Jewish-women--children----er-

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/sreply/2...aves-containing-Jewish-women--children----er-

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/sreply/2...aves-containing-Jewish-women--children----er-

You were a part of this discussion. I focused on the Skede beach killings at Liepaja, as I commented above, not on Kharkov. The discussion included examples beyond Kharkov, as you well know, and my posts were mostly about these other areas of discussion.

Your long paragraph on Soviet reprographic patina is beside the point I was making and beside your lying accusation that I stole material from elsewhere on JREF. I joined JREF this year. Please show us how the posts I made in 2009 on Rodoh dealing with analysis of Holocaust photos were influenced by a forum I'd not joined and don't even recall visiting until this year. Cite specifics.

Out of arguments, you trump up lying accusations and what you take to be telling insults about my personal life. By doing this, you reveal the lack of substance in your claims.

So I check the first three links you provide and not one relates to artefacts of digitalisation.

You need to show a denier pointing to a feature of a photo and you demonstrating that this feature is a result of digitalisation and would not be seen in the original photo. This usually happens when Truthers magnify photos of airplanes and claim some features demonstrate photoshop (untrue I believe - except for the unique case of the Naudet video, where they were trying to obscure an image rather than add anything in).

The case of Soviet photographs is completely different, the reproductions that come down to us are often terrible, but these are not artefacts of digitalisation.

Why not try using "cognitive dissonance" instead? That always makes people look smart.