Holocaust Denial Videos

[Pantaz]

... Any holocaust denial video that claims that the Holocaust did not happen or call the witnesses and victims liars are to be wholly ignored.

I'll second that.

 

[Nick Terry]

I already stated that I don't want to discuss my identity

People are asking you whether you are the maker of the videos, who is known only as 'denierbud', so this isn't a discussion of your personal identity.

It is however a pertinent question, since let's say you are not in fact denierbud, and are merely visiting JREF to promote the great denierbud's three-year old videos. That makes you a bit sad, really, since it's now well established that "watch these videos! and let's discuss them!" is CT-speak for "I am totally incapable of formulating any kind of argument myself, and I hereby delegate it to another incoherent loon who is marginally higher up the evolutionary ladder than myself".

On the other hand, let's say you are denierbud, then that means you are acting disingenously and dishonestly, and also displaying a bit of an ego. Instead of coming onto JREF and saying 'let's discuss Treblinka! I think it wasn't a death camp!', you're effectively coming here and saying 'let's discuss meeee! watch my videos!"

Either way, it's rather pathetic.

 

[Budly]

Hi Nick Terry,

I prefer to talk about ideas and opinions than identities. The videos speak for themselves. It's not a "bit sad" or "acting disingenously and dishonestly" or any other put downs you mentioned, to ask people to view videos, read rebuttals, and give their own opinion. If I saw a video showing Uri Geller bending spoons, and asked people's opinion on it here, I wouldn't be getting the hard time which I'm getting from people like you. Yet it's the same thing, different subject.

And you ignored my questions to you. Are you going to answer this time?:

Special request to Nick Terry: the holocaustcontroversies team never rebutted the video "Buchenwald" eventhough it's been out for years. Why? And what is your opinion of this video or of any episode it?

 

[Horatius]

Budly: People have linked to a site run by people far more educated in the Holocaust than most of the people here. This site has presented arguments against the videos. Why do you imagine random people on the JREF will come to some other, more correct (in your view) opinion on these videos?

These videos have already been found wanting by those with standing in this historical field. What can you say to motivate me to spend the time needed to watch them, when it's clear I don't have access to more or better information than what they have already presented?

To me, it looks like you're just trolling for hits to your website, and I'm disinclined to assist an admitted denier in that manner.

 

[Chaos]

Hi Nick Terry,

I prefer to talk about ideas and opinions than identities. The videos speak for themselves.

Oh, yes, they do indeed. They say "I am a disgusting anti-semitic Nazi worshipper, and I think you´re too stupid to tie your own shoes, because if I didn´t, I´d have taken the time to come up with better bogus claims".

 

[Nick Terry]

Hi Nick Terry,

I prefer to talk about ideas and opinions than identities. The videos speak for themselves. It's not a "bit sad" or "acting disingenously and dishonestly" or any other put downs you mentioned, to ask people to view videos, read rebuttals, and give their own opinion. If I saw a video showing Uri Geller bending spoons, and asked people's opinion on it here, I wouldn't be getting the hard time which I'm getting from people like you. Yet it's the same thing, different subject.

No, the SUBJECT is the Holocaust, specifically in the case of those videos, the Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka camps. Those videos are NOT the subject, yet you persist on peddling them as if they are somehow a worthy starting point for discussion.

They are not. The facts are easily available, as are textual attempts to negate the facts. This is a somewhat more advanced site than YouTube comments threads.

So, let's start over shall we?

Apparently, you do not believe that Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka functioned as extermination camps to kill well over 1 million Jews as part of the Nazi 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question', now usually called the Holocaust. On what basis do you justify your belief that this was not so?

Please respond without a) telling us to "watch the videos", b) telling us to "read this book" or c) trying to reverse burden of proof. Use your own words.

 

[Mondial]

Hi Budly, Thanks for your post. I took the time to look at the NAZI SHRUNKEN HEADS video at www.holocaustdenialvideos.com It's quite obvious these shrunken heads were never made in a concentration camp and are part of outdated, fake atrocity propaganda. The same goes for the "human" soap story and the "human skin" lampshade fable. In regards to the latter, it was used at the Nuremberg trials as "evidence". But afterwards the American general in charge of the US zone of occupation in Germany, Lucius Clay, had the lampshade forensically examined and it was goat hide.

 

[Nick Terry]

Special request to Nick Terry: the holocaustcontroversies team never rebutted the video "Buchenwald" eventhough it's been out for years. Why? And what is your opinion of this video or of any episode it?

I have no opinion on this video and have never watched it, nor do I intend ever to watch it, because I don't "do" YouTube or its equivalents. I'd say the same thing to anyone waving around any other video on any other subject. If the same thoughts cannot be put into textual form then they are not worth bothering with, is my own personal view.

As for my colleagues, I expect that after the laugh-fest that was debunking 'One Third of the Holocaust' they felt that there was not much point wasting further time on a complete jackass like denierbud.

This is amply confirmed by the blithering idiocies denierbud wrote down in the 'Stroop Report Forgery' essay, which since it was in textual form, I did bother to look at, and laughed as heartily as my colleague Roberto did when he wasted probably way too many words rebutting it.

As you seem to be denierbud's earthly representative du jour, could you perhaps ask this vaunted revisionist scholar why on earth he thought that suggesting Rachel Auerbach as the 'forger' of a document that is written in note-perfect Lingua Tertii Imperii would make anyone honestly familiar with Nazi documents not roll around on the floor laughing their ass off.

One last thing on the subject of the Stroop report and denierbud, namely the incoherence it creates within revisionism. denierbud's attempt to discredit the document stands in sharp contrast to the rather dishonest use made of it by the likes of Samuel Crowell - who in common with several other revisionist 'gurus' has shamelessly quote-mined it for bits he likes.

It also stands in sharp contrast to the opinion of Carlo Mattogno, who has certainly read a great many more Nazi documents than denierbud, even if he too frequently shows himself to be clueless in how to interpret them or even to read the German language correctly.

Just sayin'.

But back to Buchenwald. Another reason for the hearty yawn is that the entire gambit is at best an argument by analogy, and in fact anyone who has looked at the Nuremberg trial transcripts will know how completely incongruous the appearence of the 'shrunken head' was in the prosecution case. It led nowhere, pointed at no one in the dock, was clearly a one off not an example of 'industrial mass murder', and was included purely because it was so freaky. Indeed, commentators on the Nuremberg Trial like Lawrence Douglas (has denierbud read The Memory of Judgement?) have pointed out that Dodd's 'alas poor Yorick' moment stopped the prosecution presentation dead in its tracks, derailing it.

The final reason for the hearty yawn is we are friends with Dr Joachim Neander of Cracow, Poland, who is working on a book dealing with the myths and realities of what I call 'soap and other accessories'. I send him tidbits from time to time, and we kibitz over these matters. Naturally, we place more faith in a professionally qualified historian like Dr Neander than denierbud's bumbling efforts.

I bet you're sorry you asked now.

 

[Budly]

Hi Mondial,

Yes, that's true. The goat skin lampshade was displayed at Buchenwald for 45 years, and East German schoolchildren were shown it. It's still at Buchenwald but not on public display, though a curator, Harry Stein has access to it there. That lampshade isn't the lampshade in the Buchenwald video. The one in the video is "just a basic lampshade" as the video states.

People offer links to rebuttal websites, but even holocaustcontroversies has never tried to rebut the video Nazi Shrunken Heads or "Buchenwald." Yet look how many people on this forum have said that the links to rebuttals have been offered and thus there's no need for them to watch the video.

Hi Nick Terry:
Thanks for your response. But if you don't believe in videos as a communication, scholarly medium, and refuse to watch the videos at holocaustDenialVideos.com, why are you bothering posting on this thread?

Hi Horatius:

Yes, there are rebuttals written by well-informed people. But that's how knowledge works: you read what they have to say, and then what someone else has to say, and form your own opinion. The site holocaustcontroversies, or NIZKOR et al. have never rebutted the video Buchenwald. They pretend it doesn't exist though it's been out for years. So your argument doesn't really work for that video. And there may be a reason those sites haven't rebutted those videos: Perhaps they can't.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Question for Budly:

What do you think happened at the Wannsee Conference?

Or did it happen at all?

_{Addendum: You don't make the rules here. Stop getting snippy when people don't jump through your hoops. If people want to make comments that fall outside your "rules" but still fall inside the MA of this website, they will do so and there isn't a damned thing you can do about that.}

 

[Vermonter]

And Budly, why do you believe that the Holocaust never happened? How did you arrive at this revelation?

 

[Budly]

Hi JoeyDonuts:

You just broke Guideline #1. Just like it's possible to discuss one book of the bible, rather than the whole bible, it's also possible to discuss specific details of the holocaust. Please see my initial post.

 

[Lonewulf]

When someone opens up a thread with "I believe the whole Bible is literal, no exception" and then demands to talk only about one particular gospel, it would go pretty much the same way.

Go ahead. Try it. You'll see.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Hi QuestioningGeller:
I already stated that I don't want to discuss my identity.

OK, but very telling...

And the allegation of "cherry-picking from Pressac's book: the subject was cans of Zyklon B. Pressac's book said something about that. Should the video have just stopped looking at the Phil Donohue episode and discussed everything in Pressac's book?

If you are really serious about having discussion about the videos then answer the question and quit changing the subject.

I didn't say cherry-picking did I? I didn't ask you to discuss everything in the book did I?

1) You say it was a "valid" source.
2) It's in the video.
3) You reject the figure (95%) in the video/source.

My question again: What reason/source do you have rejecting that figure/source?

 

[Budly]

Hi Lonewulf,

You have a point. But I just mentioned that I was a holocaust denier to be open with the forum about what my views were. Then I mentioned the videos. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that I was a holocaust denier, and then everyone wouldn't be trying to hijack the thread into a "if you believe the holocaust never happened then what about this?"

 

[Lonewulf]

Because it's rather obvious that you have ulterior motives for doing so. There are huge pieces of evidence to knock down before you can get down to the nit and gritty.

For that matter, when you have mentioned things in specific, you will notice that you have been responded to personally and also led to sites that have already dealt with what you are questioning.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hi JoeyDonuts:

You just broke Guideline #1. Just like it's possible to discuss one book of the bible, rather than the whole bible, it's also possible to discuss specific details of the holocaust. Please see my initial post.

Hi Budly!

You seem to be a stickler for strict compliance with guidelines and rules of your own devising .... if only there were a shorthand way to refer to such a person on the internet...

/Hitler has only got one ball,
/Göring has two but very small,
/Himmler is somewhat sim'lar,
/But poor Goebbels has no balls at all.

 

[Budly]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

The point in the video is that even an acknowledged holocaust scholar says that 95 percent of the cans of Zyklon B were used for delousing. It's possible to use that and not agree with it. To paraphrase: "Even so and so says something that is very close to my view."--it's like that.

 

[Budly]

Hi Budly!

You seem to be a stickler for strict compliance with guidelines and rules of your own devising

You could look at it that way, but I simply requested that people look at videos and comment on them, and not bring up anything that came to their mind about proof of the holocaust, like the Wannsee conference, because the videos don't deal with the Wannsee conference.

 

[The Big Dog]

You could look at it that way, but I simply requested that people look at videos and comment on them, and not bring up anything that came to their mind about proof of the holocaust, like the Wannsee conference, because the videos don't deal with the Wannsee conference.

Well, you know who else used to be a real stickler for strict compliance with guidelines and rules of his own devising?