Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

I realize that, but I--like other readers of this thread--wanted to see Dogzilla present actual evidence for his claims instead of making pointless meta-comments about the discussion.

I am a bit bored with asking him to do so - and getting arm flapping, obfuscation, and dodging in return. But I agree: I am curious to hear what he thinks is the WWII-era history of the Jews of Vilna, Warsaw, Lodz, Riga, Kiev. How he explains the evidence for extermination at, for example, Ponar - and what evidence he has for population removal and anti-partisan warfare there. What he makes of the actual contents of the Jeager report. I am not, of course, holding my breath waiting for him to say even one substantive thing about this history.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Can you enlighten us as to why Neander, allegedly with no concern for accuracy, has spent so much effort arguing against the Jewish soap legend?

It's a soap screen. Making a big to do about refuting something that was always nonsense is simply pretending to be thorough. A smoke screen.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Please show evidence of previous studies involving GPR.
Otherwise it is the first study of it's kind.

Well, there is the Krege report . . . http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n3p20_radar.html but wait, that never actually came out . . . The non-publication of the results of whatever Krege did or didn't do is referenced here http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust_9569.html and discussed further in numerous exchanges between Roberto Muehlenkamp and others at RODOH and elsewhere, e.g., http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/6478/The-Treblinka-GPR-hoax?page=1#.TxqZ-GPOyAs.

 

[Moss]

I'm still quite amused that people actually qualified to comment on his released gpr data thought it'd show exactly show what Krege denied it does. One might wonder why he failed to release his data.

 

[LemmyCaution]

It's a soap screen. Making a big to do about refuting something that was always nonsense is simply pretending to be thorough. A smoke screen.

From which of Neander's comments on the Jewish soap legend do you deduce this and how? This one? http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/dachau/legends/NeanderSoap049.htm And how does Neander's contribution to the debunking of this legend fit in with this bit of mendacity from Dogzilla:

I realize that Team holocaust doesn't concern itself with accuracy about the holocaust as long as it sounds bad.

Making soap from Jews surely "sounds bad," and yet Neander and others have taken pains to separate fact from legend.

 

[Clayton Moore]

From which of Neander's comments on the Jewish soap legend do you deduce this and how? This one? http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/dachau/legends/NeanderSoap049.htm And how does Neander's contribution to the debunking of this legend fit in with this bit of mendacity from Dogzilla: Making soap from Jews surely "sounds bad," and yet Neander and others have taken pains to separate fact from legend.

Like I said, it's nothing more than a "Look how thorough we are" dance. We are leaving no soap unturned garbage.

 

[Moss]

Like I said, it's nothing more than a "Look how thorough we are" dance. We are leaving no soap unturned garbage.

Have you ever considered that your assumptions what the normal historians's motivations are could be entirely wrong?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Like I said, it's nothing more than a "Look how thorough we are" dance. We are leaving no soap unturned garbage.

Please cite what in the article leads you to this conclusion. Is this the piece you read to come to your conclusion?

I will take it as stipulated, then, that Dogzilla was being dishonest when he wrote that "Team holocaust doesn't concern itself with accuracy about the holocaust as long as it sounds bad" and that you understand that historians, in being thorough, don't latch onto every "bad" notion they come across.

 

[Nick Terry]

Joachim Neander has no concern for accuracy

this is a flat-out lie.

and he took no time and went through no trouble to research Zisblatt. Eric Hunt did all the research into Zisblatt's scatological fantasies

False. Joachim also received documents from Kenneth Waltzer, in addition to cross-checking the facts against the known literature and writing to the Gross-Rosen Museum to reconfirm a detail.

and exposed her as the lying sack of diamonds that she is. Neander read what Hunt wrote, realized Team holocaust had another Mischa in the works, plagiarized Eric's hard work,

False. Plagiarism is where you take other people's work and cite it uncredited. Joachim explicitly stated what information he took from Eric Hunt's website and what information he took from other sources.

put a 'let's be nice to the old lady' spin on it, and published it on an anonymous blog that nobody ever reads.

Fun fact: we have considerably more readers than the vast majority of denier sites, including Eric Hunt's, which is ranked 3.6 million lower by Alexa than HC.

His English seems fine to me but what does that have to do with anything anyway?

Your reading comprehension, obviously.

Of course she won't. There's no incentive for her to tell the truth. She gets fame and fortune by lying. The fact that JN thinks that Irene Zisblatt has any story to tell as a survivor, and the fact that you defend JN's defense of Irene just proves how abysmal the standards of holocaust "scholarship" really are.

Since Joachim did not defend Zisblatt, you are just repeating the nonsensical argument that started off this latest derail.

Neander's only regret is that Irene Zisblatt lied as badly as she did.

It is always to be regretted when someone tells blatant lies, when they have a potentially interesting story to tell which actually happened.

He has no concern about the truth because, like everybody on Team holocaust, it doesn't matter what you say as long as what you say sounds really bad.

and once again, this is a blatant falsehood, since Joachim Neander's main interest now is examining the origins of things that are held to be outright myths. He has written a very important article on the Danzig soap case and is currently writing a book about the rumours surrounding 'human soap' and 'human skin' artefacts.

His writing an article at all on Zisblatt showing that her story was a fantasy cannot be spun to claim that "it doesn't matter what you say as long as what you say sounds really bad". That's just complete nonsense, and everyone reading this thread other than your sidekicks knows it's nonsense. You know it's nonsense, but you just want to troll, score points and kick up a fuss.

 

[Nick Terry]

This was billed as the first study of it's kind. How can there have been previous steps forward if this is the first? Did you get your doctorate in box of crackerjacks?

Duh, I was referring to previous archaeological investigations of other camps. Which as you ought to recall, have included Belzec, Chelmno and Sobibor. You've dismissed those with a handwave. It's 99.9% certain that whatever results are published from the Treblinka investigation will also be dismissed by you.

 

[Nick Terry]

How many books on the Holocaust did you bother to read last year?

I think this question deserves an answer from Dogzilla, Clayton Moore and Saggy, especially now that Dogzilla is trying to pose as a truthseeker.

It would be interesting to see how many times Dogzilla and co refuse to answer the question....

 

[LemmyCaution]

False. Plagiarism is where you take other people's work and cite it uncredited. Joachim explicitly stated what information he took from Eric Hunt's website and what information he took from other sources.

The revs' take on this is quite strange, delusional even.

Joachim took time and effort to check the charges against Zisblatt. Using various sources, including the revisionist argument, he drew his own conclusion - that Zisblatt fictionalized and has been telling false stories about her life.

For this effort and for concluding that Zisblatt's life story is largely made up, the revs attack Joachim as 1) a defender of Zisblatt, 2) having no regard for accuracy, 3) going along with any "bad" charge against the Nazis, and 4) pretending to be thorough but publishing garbage.

Apparently blissfully unaware of Joachim's focus - understanding how folk myths spread whilst separating fact and myth - Dogzilla even defames Joachim by posting outright falsehoods about him.

What has their knickers in such a twist about Joachim's careful review of the Zisblatt "case"?

 

[Nick Terry]

Sad to see you bogged down in the concepts of fact and fiction, and the distinction between the two, that applies to normal everyday discourse and to scientific research as well, but are wholly out of place with discussion related to the holohoax.

The 'testimony' of holohoax survivors is not to be evaluated with the misplaced notions of fact and fiction, instead it is to be interpreted as a cry from the heart, the voice of the universal suffering, that touches deeper truths than can be reached by others.

As a result, we have to train our ignorant ears to properly hear what the hoax survivors are telling us. That's not what I claim, but it is what the goyim have resorted to in explaining the obvious and degenerate lies of every holohoax survivor ... check out for example respected Austrailian historian Inga Clendenen.....

http://www.holohoax101.com/102/

Clendenen explains, in her book 'Reading the Holocaust', that ....

"We have to train our ignorant ears to hear those communiques from the underworld. The voices we will hear find their context within a vast silence: the multitude of the dead. It is almost impossible to fathom the depth of the silence, to remember that behind the shoulder of every individual who survived the camps stand a thousand who did not."

It's Clendinnen, nitwit, and nothing she says in her book contradicts sifting out fiction from fact.

Clendinnen even expresses doubt about a famous incident at Auschwitz, the shooting of Schillinger by a 'dancer', stating that she did not quite believe it based on reading, IIRC, one source. The fact that there are a very large number of sources which describe the incident and the ensuing massacre (billed as a 'mutiny' by the SS in contemporary documents) inside the crematorium means that her disbelief was unwarranted. Still, if Clendinnen could also express doubt about a survivor testimony in the same book which Saggy quote-mined, then evidently his post is nonsense.

This example also illustrates how one is meant to sift fact from fiction - by checking claims against other sources. That is what Joachim Neander did with Zisblatt's memoir, and how other fabricators have been exposed.

It may all seem like too much hard work for the deniers, who evidently prefer to rely on their vaunted intuition and patented incredulity, yet that is how it's done in the real world - in courts, by journalists and by historians.

 

[Wroclaw]

That's what the Holohoax has done to free speech.

Nope.

Free speech is what is guaranteed to you by the government. That includes public schools but not private schools, and it certainly doesn't include workplaces, unless said workplaces are government offices of some kind.

So don't get your panties in a bunch. It isn't illegal to deny the Holocaust. The damage you do to your own reputation, however, is your own problem.

 

[LemmyCaution]

This example also illustrates how one is meant to sift fact from fiction - by checking claims against other sources. That is what Joachim Neander did with Zisblatt's memoir, and how other fabricators have been exposed.

It may all seem like too much hard work for the deniers, who evidently prefer to rely on their vaunted intuition and patented incredulity, yet that is how it's done in the real world - in courts, by journalists and by historians.

And, conversely, when multiple, independent sources for an event or incident largely mesh, reasonable people conclude that the event or incident was likely to have occurred. That is probably why, not wanting to admit to Nazi extermination actions, at Ponar, for example, Dogzilla, Clayton, and Saggy put hands on ears and cover up eyes when it comes to all the different sources for the murder actions at Ponar. Dogzilla goes so far as concocting false claims - which he can't support - concerning these actions - all the while ignoring all the documentation for them.

 

[tsig]

It's a soap screen. Making a big to do about refuting something that was always nonsense is simply pretending to be thorough. A smoke screen.

So you think WWII actually happened? Maybe it was just a giant conspiracy between the Jew guided US, UK and the USSR to invade Germany and steal it's resources.

 

[Moss]

I also consider it quite amusing that Herr Neander gets crap for actually reading revisionist arguments and acknowledging they have been at least partially right. I'm not sure how that justifies the plagiarism allegation as normally we tend to hear the "but our arguments get ignored!" choral. If that is how people are treated when they take your arguments at face value I frankly don't see much reason to.

 

[Saggy]

Still, if Clendinnen could also express doubt about a survivor testimony in the same book which Saggy quote-mined,

You don't understand Clendinnen at all. Of course she expresses doubt, she all but says the 'testimony' of Meuller, for example, is utter nonsense, but .... here is the point..... that it doesn't make any difference. The holocaust 'testimony' can't be read the way we read everything else, that 'we must train our ignorant ears' to appreciate the deep truths which are conveyed by the obvious lies of the 'survivors'.

This quote is so great it bears repeating .....

"We have to train our ignorant ears to hear those communiques from the underworld. The voices we will hear find their context within a vast silence: the multitude of the dead. It is almost impossible to fathom the depth of the silence, to remember that behind the shoulder of every individual who survived the camps stand a thousand who did not."

Neander wrestles with this very same question in his intro to the Zisblatt nonsense. It is complete idiocy, the 'testimony' of Zisblatt, Meuller, Wiesel, et. al. is some of the most degenerate phantasmagoria that has ever seen print.

 

[Dogzilla]

Can you imagine the rage that would befall someone who dared speak up and out at an Irene Zisblatt appearance? A teacher questioning her lies? A parent demanding she not be allowed to lie at her child's school?

That's what the Holohoax has done to free speech.

Can any average person with a working family take that risk?

DOGZILLA FANTASY

"Yes, you...the incredibly good looking well-dressed gentlemen with bulging biceps in the back...do you have a question?"

Yes Ms Zisblatt, I do. My name is Dog Zilla. A good friend of mine, Nick Terry...he's a professor at some school in England, he presents papers at holocaust conferences, and takes money from the USHMM...he says your memoirs are worthless as a historical reference. My other good friend, LemmyCaution, he says you're a liar. Nick and Lemmy both say that this other guy named Joachim Neander, who is like totally an expert on holocaust survivor stories, thinks you had a good story to tell until you embellished it with what I can only describe as depraved fantasies. Besides the fame, fortune, respect, recognition, adulation and reverence you receive from being one of the K'doshim, why don't you tell the truth about Auschwitz? And as a followup, why do you think Nick, Lemmy, and Joachim hate Jews so much?"

Wouldn't that be GREAT!

 

[MG1962]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Irene+Zisblatt&button=

I guarantee that there was once a wiki entree "Irene Zisblatt."

Where did it go?

Why isn't it still there and her lies documented?

It seems that a Holocaust truth is often a lie you can get away with. If you can't get away with it IT DISAPPEARS and the only place you can find it is on a Revisionist web site.

Instead of bleating about it - Do something. Anyone can create a Wiki page. They have extensive resources to help you do it. You can even keep track of changes you or other people do to the page

If people are trying to sensor the holocaust or discussions about potential survivors you will be able to prove it pretty darn fast.

Bonus tip - look at a site called "Wayback Machine" It stores copies of web pages for history. So once you make your page, save it at the site. It time stamps exactly when the save was done, so if your page somehow get removed, you can prove it with a link