• 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.
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/
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.



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.



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.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

The procedural mechanics of the Holocaust myth, as expressed by Holocaust mythologians, were physically impossible.
 
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.

It is physically impossible for two reasons. First, if you throw a live person into a burning pit they will run out. To burn someone at the stake, you must first tie them to the stake, that's why it's there. No charge for this bit of elementary analysis. Second, you cannot cremate anything in a pit, cremation requires 1 hour of 2000 deg. F heat which requires copious O2. There is little O2 in a pit to begin with, and if bodies were piled on there would be no O2 for the fire. That's why bodies are cremated on a pyre. Again, no charge.


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 only reliable witness to Auschwitz according to Y. Bauer of Yad Vashem, Filip Meuler, states that the kapos played a game at the morning roll call where prisoners were challenged to doff and replace their caps quickly, those failing to do so were CLUBBED TO DEATH. A typical morning roll call as recounted by Meuller could result in 35 deaths. In the next sentence Meuller complains that the tea at the roll call following the clubbing was served "stone cold" as well. Folks you can't make up stuff this idiotic.

As I said, no investigation is necessary. All you have to do is read Meuller's book, 'Three Years in the Gas Chambers'. Really, all you have to do is read the title.
 
Last edited:
So I check the first three links you provide and not one relates to artefacts of digitalisation.
Try to stay focused.

I posted that
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.

You replied that I was
simply lifting this argument from the 9/11 forum.
Finally, you lied outright, stating firmly that
you stole this from other discussions on JREF

So, to show that I didn't lift anything from JREF regarding the provenance of photos used by deniers, I linked to number of 2009 posts where I wrote, inter alia,
We've said this in another thread, some time ago: viewing scans of books on your computer screen isn't really the serious study of photographic evidence. At any rate, it's good enough for the Revs, when it suits them, but next they come along and want originals of text documents . . . when that suits them . . .
(from my first link, calling out digital copies, that is, scans)
I don't think we will solve many issues with Moose's fundamentalist appeal for photos, photos, photos. Certainly no more than we will with shyster's fundamentalist cry for real forensics. As Nick said, there are conventions in publications, and also there are complexities with the photos, technical issues, and their sourcing. In short, there are so many loose ends. .. . . Struk also discusses Roberto's photograph #3: "Caption: 'German soldiers shooting Jews who are still alive in a mass grave in Vinnitsa, USSR.' Source: GFH.". . . more difficulty with the fundamentalist view of photographs, more complexities requiring more sources and more research.
(my second link, alluding to technical issues, this time not calling out digital copies as I'd already mentioned that technical issue)

Has Moose ever examined a negative for a single photograph about which he brays so loudly and monotonously? Or has he seen only scans made from halftones and downloads from the Internets . . . ? Is that what Revs mean by real forensic evidence? . . . . Or has the Moose seen the "actual" halftones! Reminding us of Allan Sherman who cried "Here's what I've been looking for, a genuine copy of a fake Dior!"

I remain curious about the Liepaja photographs as they show a mass grave, a mass shooting, mainly women and children as victims--and as I wrote in an earlier post asking about <word redacted> handling of Liepaja, the photographs IIRC are well sourced.
(from my third link, again explicitly mentioning digital copies versus halftones)

My fourth link was to show my focus on Skede, not on what you claimed, Kharkov, and did discuss technical details such as the type of camera used for the Liepaja photos as well as the source of the negatives, negatives being the source for prints and then digital copies of prints, of course.

I am reminded that Moose has stayed silent on his technical qualifications to study photos--and scans and Internet postings from scans. Neither Moose's version nor mine contains enough information to decide very precisely what Moose and shyster are claiming to be decided. To "prove" fraud, the proponent of the hoax needs to see a lot more than these scans show and in formats superior to Internet postings. The prints from the negatives might be a good start, the negatives themselves even better.

It is so difficult to see with certainty details in these scans that claims to proof of manipulation are necessarily exaggerated; we do, however, have information on the provenance of the photos and enough information in the scans to draw a conclusion about the extent to which the 10 images conform to accounts of the Skede beach killings: there is nothing in these images as shown and as we can see from them that is inconsistent with maps of the area, court testimony, or other witness accounts of the Aktion.
(from my fifth link, again explicit on the digital copies which deniers so often study and make leaps from)

Now, these posts didn't go into detail on "artifacts of digitalisation," nor did I claim that they did. You claimed first that I stole the argument from JREF 9/11 threads and then tried implying that I didn't post on digital copies at all:
I checked the first three links you provide and not one relates to artefacts of digitalisation.
Your introduction of the important sounding phrase "artefacts of digitalisation" seems designed to shift the argument and allow you to imply that I didn't mention scans, Internet copies, etc., which I did, as can be seen from the quotations from the posts.

So, unsurprisingly, the posts do what I said they did - they introduced the problem of working from scanned copies and focused on Liepaja, not Kharkov - rather than what you claimed.

You read better than you let on. You lied about my posts, I suppose hoping no one would click to them. You are weaving away from your claim that I stole material on the nature of copies of photos used by deniers and now introducing another line of argument.

Please prove your first lie before going onto others.
 
Last edited:
It is physically impossible for two reasons. First, if you throw a live person into a burning pit they will run out. To burn someone at the stake, you must first tie them to the stake, that's why it's there. No charge for this bit of elementary analysis. Second, you cannot cremate anything in a pit, cremation requires 1 hour of 2000 deg. F heat which requires copious O2. There is little O2 in a pit to begin with, and if bodies were piled on there would be no O2 for the fire. That's why bodies are cremated on a pyre. Again, no charge.
So you are arguing that Wiesel was using the word cremate in its technical sense? Did he actually write cremate? I sure don't know . . . but your reply strikes me as quibbling. However, throwing a person into a burning pit and allowing him or her to burn to death doesn't strike me as impossible -- there are many conditions that would allow this to happen. Are you sure people thrown into such a pit (what was its depth? how large was the fire? what kind of injuries before and after being thrown did the victim suffer?) is impossible? So impossible as to not require investigation of or thought about such claims?

The only reliable witness to Auschwitz according to Y. Bauer of Yad Vashem, Filip Meuler, states that the kapos played a game at the morning roll call where prisoners were challenged to doff and replace their caps quickly, those failing to do so were CLUBBED TO DEATH. A typical morning roll call as recounted by Meuller could result in 35 deaths. In the next sentence Meuller complains that the tea at the roll call following the clubbing was served "stone cold" as well. Folks you can't make up stuff this idiotic.

As I said, no investigation is necessary. All you have to do is read Meuller's book, 'Three Years in the Gas Chambers'. Really, all you have to do is read the title.
Now, this is purely fatuous. Yehuda Bauer, like any of us, is entitled to his moment of hyperbole. There are many witnesses to SS (and Kapo) roll call tortures, not only Filip Mueller. How many witnesses testified to the other atrocities at the Auschwitz trial? Please? And, even by your own low standards, you are also misusing Bauer's quotation in any event. You wrote earlier that
According to Yehuda Bauer, director of Yad Vashem, there is only one. In the preface to Filip Meuler's book on his three years in the gas chambers there Bauer writes "Filip Meuller's book is a unique document indeed. It is the testimony of the only man who saw the Jewish people die and lived to tell what he saw".
We are not here discussing only the murder of Jews at Auschwitz, but daily atrocities and the murder of Poles, which I noted in my post. And, no, there was not just one person who saw these things. Again, how many testified at the Auschwitz trial? And is it your standard that because one testimony is flawed (your opinion), over 100s of other witness accounts are not worth even investigating? This is an astonishing stance, by the way, sort of a new low in Know-Nothingism.
 
Last edited:
"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

Try: http://onethirdoftheholocaust.blogspot.com/

Jurgen Graf left Switzerland because that country has a totalitarian law which imprisons people for questioning the holocaust.

Yes, because when people think "totalitarian," the first country they think of must be Switzerland.
 
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.

Ah, yes. "I don't hate anyone; it's the filthy Jews who are the haters!"
 
I'd remind Saggy that a live person can't "run" out of a burning pit if it's too deep.
 
Certain outside links are being repeated with a frequency that may place them in the catagory of spam. Links to "1/3 'o the Holocaust" and "Ho0ocaust Denia M0vies" should not be repeated, either in the main body of posts or in quotes of other members. Reposting these links will lead to further moderator action. Multiple posting of the same link, even if not one of the ones listed above, may subject the member to further moderator action.

Note: The names of the links herein have obviously been changed in order to keep from further promoting them. However, it is easy enough to tell from context which links are meant.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Did I say that? Which case do we have evidence and which one do we not?
.
Ummm. In the post I quoted, in which you said we do not have any documents from the aliens or Egyptians collaborating those stories.

Since we *do* have such documentation from the Nazis, that is an entire class of evidence we have supporting the Holocaust, which we do not have for your examples.

Making your attempts to compare them flawed, as I said.
.
When didn't I deny that there does not exist a lack of evidence for the absence of confusing double negatives? Rather than pretend to misunderstand what I say, why don't you just answer the question: Is 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' a valid statement of principle or not?

I realize that answering the question will make you look foolish no matter what you say. But don't worry. We're used to that.
.
Asked and answered: I have made no comments regarding that statement, and so feel no need to do more than observe you are trying to use it to make flawed comparisons and distract from the fact that you are desperate not to discuss this supposed "absence of evidence" since it blows *your* statement that such evidence was handled differently for the Holocaust.
.
He touches on it in that book about people believing weird things.
.
And does not refer to that particular standard in that 'touching'.
.
Well, yes, of course, some Jews are frauds. But a**holes come in every color. You can't paint an entire group of people as evil just because a few "second generation" survivors think the German government should pay for therapists to help them overcome the poor parenting skills of the first generation "survivors".
.
Citation?
.
(NOTE TO ALL: Since TSR insists on misrepresenting everything I say, I'm going to throw it back in his face by responding to his comments with a response to imaginary Saggy quotes.)
.
Even had I misrepresented you, something that again you cannot offer any evidence of, your 'response' to 'imaginary quotes' is off topic.

The topic here is your statement that evidence that evidence for the Holocaust was evaluated differently than evidence for other historical events.

Are you ever going to get around to demonstrating that the double standard is not your own?
.
 
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?

You repeat the lies and nonsense as if "Next stop Holy Grail."
 
A typical morning roll call as recounted by Meuller could result in 35 deaths. In the next sentence Meuller complains that the tea at the roll call following the clubbing was served "stone cold" as well. Folks you can't make up stuff this idiotic.

Other than your opinion, why is this an idiotic situation?
 
Other than your opinion, why is this an idiotic situation?

Train of thought.

It shows the gruesome story he had just written had no effect on him.

Not unlike the spouse murderer, who, after telling the police the gruesome details of how he discovered the body, muses that the windowsill plants need watering.
 
Train of thought.

It shows the gruesome story he had just written had no effect on him.

Not unlike the spouse murderer, who, after telling the police the gruesome details of how he discovered the body, muses that the windowsill plants need watering.

This shows how little actual life experience our resident deniers actuall have.

Clayton cannot imagine any other reason for the person in question to act the way he did than a world-wide conspiracy of joos. I often notice how conspiracy theorists - for all their wildly imaginative and wacky ideas - have really poor imaginations.
 
This shows how little actual life experience our resident deniers actuall have.

Clayton cannot imagine any other reason for the person in question to act the way he did than a world-wide conspiracy of joos. I often notice how conspiracy theorists - for all their wildly imaginative and wacky ideas - have really poor imaginations.

Okay. You didn't get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom