Holocaust Denial Videos

[Budly]

Twinstead wrote,

The commonly-held narrative is that the holocaust did indeed happen. It is supported by the VAST majority of historians on Earth. The record--and its evidence-is out there for everybody to see.

A comment 400 years earlier:
The commonly-held narrative is that the holocaust Jesus rising from the dead did indeed happen. It is supported by the VAST majority of historians on Earth. The record--and its evidence-is out there for everybody to see.

Just like atheists of long ago were turned into "bad guys with crafty evil motives." So today are holocaust deniers. Which is a huge strength of the myth today as it was with Christianity then. Being an atheist today is really not that big of a deal. It was cutting edge 400 years ago. Most people here believe what replaced it: The Holocaust Myth. You refuse to watch the videos just like Christians of long ago would refuse to read an atheist tract.

Christianity and the holocaust: both define good and evil; both justify religious colonialism in the Mideast.

The Buchenwald video states that the liberation of Buchenwald was an opportunity for a Psyche Warfare operation. Afterall the first two Americans to enter Buchenwald were Psyche Warfare officers, Edward A. Tennenbaum and I forget the other name. Then there are lines from a April 18, 1945 New York Times article that are nearly verbatim lines from a Psyche Warfare/OSS movie that was made for the Nuremberg court and shown in courtroom. Explanation: The New York Times author was given the script (he was present when the footage was being shot) so that it would purposely "blowback" into the American media.

That is why some Americans over 40, remember hearing about human skin lampshades: It was blowback from a Psyche Warfare operation. This is all in the video Buchenwald. This video hasn't been debunked over at holocaustControversies, and two members of that group, Nick Terry and Woolf claim not to have seen it. I think they really have seen it, but can't debunk it. How would they explain the New York Times plagiarism of the script?

If anyone wants to see proof of a New York Times Reporter working with Psyche Warfare/OSS, it's right here. Allow 2-3 minutes to come up on your screen.

 

[The Big Dog]

Twinstead wrote,

A comment 400 years earlier:
The commonly-held narrative is that the holocaust Jesus rising from the dead did indeed happen. It is supported by the VAST majority of historians on Earth. The record--and its evidence-is out there for everybody to see.

Just like atheists of long ago were turned into "bad guys with crafty evil motives." So today are holocaust deniers. Which is a huge strength of the myth today as it was with Christianity then. Being an atheist today is really not that big of a deal. It was cutting edge 400 years ago. Most people here believe what replaced it: The Holocaust Myth. You refuse to watch the videos just like Christians of long ago would refuse to read an atheist tract.

That analogy is appallingly bad. Why? Because you can actually go today and talk to people who actually liberated the camps, you can go talk to people who survived.

Go tell them you are a holocaust denier.

 

[gtc]

The other problem with that view is that atheists have actually gone out and examined the veracity of each of the pieces of evidence for Jesus contained in the historical record.

Holocaust deniers clearly have not done so. Instead they tend to either ignore the enormous bulk of evidence to concentrate on irrelevant details or just make up rubbish.

 

[oldhat]

Budly, are you Bradley Smith?

 

[abenja1]

Twinstead wrote,


The Buchenwald video states that the liberation of Buchenwald was an opportunity for a Psyche Warfare operation. Afterall the first two Americans to enter Buchenwald were Psyche Warfare officers, Edward A. Tennenbaum and I forget the other name. Then there are lines from a April 18, 1945 New York Times article that are nearly verbatim lines from a Psyche Warfare/OSS movie that was made for the Nuremberg court and shown in courtroom. Explanation: The New York Times author was given the script (he was present when the footage was being shot) so that it would purposely "blowback" into the American media.

So you're saying that every person who helped liberate those camps is lying? Anyone here in JREF who had someone in their family or know someone that was there who can please use it to shut Budly up.

 

[Arus808]

I've stated my relation to the Holocaust (relatives who died and survived). Of course Budly doesn't care who he tramples over with his lies

 

[fullflavormenthol]

So you're saying that every person who helped liberate those camps is lying? Anyone here in JREF who had someone in their family or know someone that was there who can please use it to shut Budly up.

Unfortunately I doubt that would do anything to shut him up, and more than likely he would pull out yet another bad analogy comparing things to religion.

/Rant

The basic premise of his argument seems to be very similar to that of a creationist/intelligent design proponent. Look desperately for even the smallest issue with any part of the overall Holocaust narrative, and then pretend that that alone knocks down the whole.

I mean look specifically at the guidelines he attempted to impose on the thread. Now the claim could be made by him that he didn't want to debate the whole Holocaust, but that isn't really true at all. What it appears to me is that he was trying to accomplish a version of the Good Person Survey many evangelical Christians pull out when trying to witness to people.

The "survey" begins by asking if you believe in god, and if you say no than they ask you if you know 100% of everything. Well the answer is no, and they will proclaim that you are not an atheist. Then on to if there is a god and a heaven....will you get in? Do bad people go to heaven? And onto questions and if you stole, lied, thought a chick was hot, etc. All of these "questions" are meant to lead you to a pre-determined answer. They call this little exercise "convicting through the spirit". The real point is that the entire "survey" was merely a disingenuous attempt to force you to their conclusion by controlling the method of "debate".

Budly's opening post seems to me to be the Holocaust Denier version of this. The point is that he wants to force the argument into a narrow area, allowing nothing outside his videos (also for shameless self promotion) so that he can attempt to convince at least one of us that if "THEY" were wrong about one thing, than maybe they are wrong about everything else. Of course most people are smarter than that, and the majority of the evidence favors the fact that the Holocaust occurred; but that is of little importance to the denier.

In the meantime we will be treated to bad analogies about how the "majority" of historians 400 years ago believed Jesus resurrected from the grave (which seems to ignore that at any given time the majority of historians are not Christian, given that the majority of the overall population isn't), and not be expected to see through these analogies as an attempt to insult to perceived atheist nature of the JREF.

/rant.

 

[Lonewulf]

Twinstead wrote,

A comment 400 years earlier:
The commonly-held narrative is that the holocaust Jesus rising from the dead did indeed happen. It is supported by the VAST majority of historians on Earth. The record--and its evidence-is out there for everybody to see.

Just like atheists of long ago were turned into "bad guys with crafty evil motives." So today are holocaust deniers. Which is a huge strength of the myth today as it was with Christianity then. Being an atheist today is really not that big of a deal. It was cutting edge 400 years ago. Most people here believe what replaced it: The Holocaust Myth. You refuse to watch the videos just like Christians of long ago would refuse to read an atheist tract.

Fail analogy is fail.

 

[twinstead]

Twinstead wrote,

A comment 400 years earlier:
The commonly-held narrative is that the holocaust Jesus rising from the dead did indeed happen. It is supported by the VAST majority of historians on Earth. The record--and its evidence-is out there for everybody to see.

Oh really. the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is the same that the holocaust happened as advertised? The vast majority of historians support the fact that Jesus rose from the dead?? What planet are you from?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Oh really. the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is the same that the holocaust happened as advertised? The vast majority of historians support the fact that Jesus rose from the dead?? What planet are you from?

He's claiming that the vast majority of historians 400 years ago believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As has been noted, this is, of course, an especially egregious false-analogy fallacy. First, there were no "historians" to speak of 400 years ago, at least in the modern sense of the word. Such history as was kept was written almost exclusively by clergymen, most of whom presumably accepted The Resurrection as a literal article of faith. Second, as has also been noted, evidence for the historicity of the Holocaust is massive and overwhelming; evidence for the historicity of Jesus' having risen from the dead is tenuous at best.

 

[twinstead]

He's claiming that the vast majority of historians 400 years ago believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As has been noted, this is, of course, an especially egregious false-analogy fallacy. First, there were no "historians" to speak of 400 years ago, at least in the modern sense of the word. Such history as was kept was written almost exclusively by clergymen, most of whom presumably accepted The Resurrection as a literal article of faith. Second, as has also been noted, evidence for the historicity of the Holocaust is massive and overwhelming; evidence for the historicity of Jesus' having risen from the dead is tenuous at best.

Oh, got it. I'm still, however, curious as to what planet he lives on.

 

[Lonewulf]

Such history as was kept was written almost exclusively by clergymen, most of whom presumably accepted The Resurrection as a literal article of faith.

Actually, by the 1600s (I'm assuming that that's what we mean by 400 years ago), "history" was already developing its own style separate from the clergy. From wikipedia:

It was still in the Greek sense that Francis Bacon used the term in the late 16th century, when he wrote about "Natural History". For him, historia was "the knowledge of objects determined by space and time", that sort of knowledge provided by memory (while science was provided by reason, and poetry was provided by fantasy).

Link


And besides, this is a very Eurocentric view. There were Islamic historians, after all.

In the preface to his book, the Muqaddimah (1377), the Arab historian and early sociologist, Ibn Khaldun, warned of seven mistakes that he thought that historians regularly committed. In this criticism, he approached the past as strange and in need of interpretation. The originality of Ibn Khaldun was to claim that the cultural difference of another age must govern the evaluation of relevant historical material, to distinguish the principles according to which it might be possible to attempt the evaluation, and lastly, to feel the need for experience, in addition to rational principles, in order to assess a culture of the past. Ibn Khaldun often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of historical data." As a result, he introduced a scientific method to the study of history, and he often referred to it as his "new science".[25] His historical method included role of state, communication, propaganda and systematic bias in history,[26] However Ibn Khaldun had no followers and established no school; his work was unknown in the west until the 19th century and had no influence there.[27][28][29]

Yes, I know I'm relying on wikipedia. It's easiest for pulling out specific examples, though.

Of course, none of this supports justification for holocaust denial.

 

[woolfe99]

It really doesn't matter how well developed history was as a discipline 400 years ago. It was heretical to question a biblical claim 400 years ago, and hence nobody openly questioned it, whether that person used historical methodogy in other areas or not.

The only relevant point here is that with respect to the resurrection, the only evidence for it is the bible itself. There is no corroboration from any non-biblical source. Accordingly, one must have faith that the bible is true in order to believe in the resurrection. For the Holocaust, there is a vast array of evidence of different types, and individual pieces of evidence cross-corroborate. You are not required to have faith that one source is telling the truth. Believing in the Holocaust requires no faith. All you must do is follow the evidence.

The "faith" argument is essentially meaningless. It can arbitrarily be applied to anything that people widely believe in, be it the dropping of atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaka, or the fact that cold fusion doesn't work. Arbitrarily labelling one commonly held believe as an article of faith is just a fancy way of handwaving the evidence that supports that belief. The moment someone trots out the "your belief is like religion" line, it's like putting up a giant neon says that says they FAIL at examining evidence.

- woolfe

 

[SpitfireIX]

Actually, by the 1600s (I'm assuming that that's what we mean by 400 years ago), "history" was already developing its own style separate from the clergy. . . .

I'd say "beginning to develop," would be more accurate, which is why I qualified my statements with the phrases "to speak of," and "almost exclusively" And I'm not sure that the quote about Bacon supports your assertion, as "natural history" is very different from the history of human civilization (though the two subjects are obviously connected in certain important ways).

And besides, this is a very Eurocentric view. There were Islamic historians, after all.

Yes, I know, but they presumably didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, which is why I didn't include them. Perhaps I should have clarified that.

Yes, I know I'm relying on wikipedia. It's easiest for pulling out specific examples, though..

Most other sources either aren't available online (at least not for free) or don't let you cut and paste text. So we go with what's handy when we have to.

Of course, none of this supports justification for holocaust denial.

Nothing provides such justification.

 

[kageki]

I dont care about the gas chambers or the ovens.

All reliable census data shows a loss of Jews from 1938 to 1945 of at least 5 million Jews.

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_408.html

please explain that..or debunk it.

you gonna suggest all census data was Zionist created? all the census takers were bribed by the Jews?

spare us. provide evidence or keep quiet.

the census and population statistics speak for themselves. there are around 5 million or so missing Jews.

Parky! How dare you! Don't you know it's 6 million!? Not around 5 million... it's 6 million!!

It's not too much of a joke because people got pissed around here when I started debating on the figure before and reduced it to 5 million. The point being these figures are variable and we see that in the census data you have provided.

For 1993, there are 5 sources that range from 13 to 18 million. That's 5 million in difference and it's not unusual to see 1-2 million differences from other times. Let's take a look at those numbers back then:

1900 - 12 million
1920 - 14.5 million
1933 - 17 million
1934 - 15.7 million
1939 - 18 million (16?)
1945 - 1958 - 12 million
1969 - 2000 - 14-15 million

We see that a figure of 18 million was the peak that was never to be reached again since then. I did mention a high of 18 million in 1993, but comparing the other numbers, the more accepted figured seems to be around 14-15 million in the 90s.

Judging from 100 years of census data, it seems like the period of 1930s is an aberration. Both in the amount and the growth rate. In just 5 years between 1934-1939, population grew by 2.3 million. It took 20 years between 1900-1920 for the population to grow by 2.5 million. 13 years between 1920-1933 to grow by 2.5 million. 11 years between 1958-1969 to grow by roughly 2.5 million. Somehow, the population grew nearly the same amount at half the time between 1934-1939.

I'll point out that there is one census for 1939 with a figure of 16 million. Interestingly this figure of 16 million seems to make more sense judging from the historical census data. Even to say 17 million at the time, that's 1 million people that has been reconciled with a stroke of a pen. At 16 million, another 1 million reduced and now we are down to 4 million "missing" Jews. How far does this go exactly?

Also what happened from 1933 to 1934 where apparently 1.3 million Jews went missing only to grow by 2.3 million in the next 5 years?

Census Methodology

The census is for religion and not ethnicity. People can change their religion for one and Jews have laws on determining who is a Jew. What are the criteria and methodology used to determine the Jewish population? What if a Jew went into hiding and became a converso? If a Christian became a Muslim, then we don't say a Christian went "missing" or assumed to have been killed. It's not difficult to change your religious or political affiliations or even your citizenship.

That said, it is not even necessary to get into that when a couple million people can be shifted around with relative ease let alone that missing does not necessarily mean death by a Nazi. No doubt some Jews died and furthermore that is to be expected. Many people did and this is what happens during war.

Anyways, Parky, there is no need to fake all the census data. Only the crucial one which in this case is the census around 1939. Indeed the crux of the census argument almost entirely falls on that one figure from 1939. Not surprisingly I have heard criticisms that the Jewish population has been exaggerated. If that were the case then this whole census argument can easily be dismissed as a "clerical error".

So what is it anyways? 5 million or 6 million? 3 million?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Parky! How dare you! Don't you know it's 6 million!? Not around 5 million... it's 6 million!!

It's not too much of a joke because people got pissed around here when I started debating on the figure before and reduced it to 5 million.

Are you sure they weren't simply making presumptions about WHY you were trying to adjust the numbers downward? Why were you doing that?

So what is it anyways? 5 million or 6 million? 3 million?

Somewhere in that range, yes. I think anyone rational will tell you it's not precisely known how many Jews were slaughtered, but cite a range, with 6 million being the approximate upper end. I'm no expert but 3 million seems very low.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Just like atheists of long ago were turned into "bad guys with crafty evil motives." So today are holocaust deniers.

Supremely bad and the occasion for putting you on ignore. I'm going on a little "Munich" style romp through the forums, hunting down the holocaust deniers/revisionists and putting them on ignore. UNLESS they show the slightest interest in actually getting at the truth. Mr Budley comes nowhere near making the grade.

 

[woolfe99]

Parky! How dare you! Don't you know it's 6 million!? Not around 5 million... it's 6 million!!

It's not too much of a joke because people got pissed around here when I started debating on the figure before and reduced it to 5 million. The point being these figures are variable and we see that in the census data you have provided.

For 1993, there are 5 sources that range from 13 to 18 million. That's 5 million in difference and it's not unusual to see 1-2 million differences from other times. Let's take a look at those numbers back then:

1900 - 12 million
1920 - 14.5 million
1933 - 17 million
1934 - 15.7 million
1939 - 18 million (16?)
1945 - 1958 - 12 million
1969 - 2000 - 14-15 million

We see that a figure of 18 million was the peak that was never to be reached again since then. I did mention a high of 18 million in 1993, but comparing the other numbers, the more accepted figured seems to be around 14-15 million in the 90s.

Judging from 100 years of census data, it seems like the period of 1930s is an aberration. Both in the amount and the growth rate. In just 5 years between 1934-1939, population grew by 2.3 million. It took 20 years between 1900-1920 for the population to grow by 2.5 million. 13 years between 1920-1933 to grow by 2.5 million. 11 years between 1958-1969 to grow by roughly 2.5 million. Somehow, the population grew nearly the same amount at half the time between 1934-1939.

I'll point out that there is one census for 1939 with a figure of 16 million. Interestingly this figure of 16 million seems to make more sense judging from the historical census data. Even to say 17 million at the time, that's 1 million people that has been reconciled with a stroke of a pen. At 16 million, another 1 million reduced and now we are down to 4 million "missing" Jews. How far does this go exactly?

Also what happened from 1933 to 1934 where apparently 1.3 million Jews went missing only to grow by 2.3 million in the next 5 years?

Census Methodology

The census is for religion and not ethnicity. People can change their religion for one and Jews have laws on determining who is a Jew. What are the criteria and methodology used to determine the Jewish population? What if a Jew went into hiding and became a converso? If a Christian became a Muslim, then we don't say a Christian went "missing" or assumed to have been killed. It's not difficult to change your religious or political affiliations or even your citizenship.

That said, it is not even necessary to get into that when a couple million people can be shifted around with relative ease let alone that missing does not necessarily mean death by a Nazi. No doubt some Jews died and furthermore that is to be expected. Many people did and this is what happens during war.

Anyways, Parky, there is no need to fake all the census data. Only the crucial one which in this case is the census around 1939. Indeed the crux of the census argument almost entirely falls on that one figure from 1939. Not surprisingly I have heard criticisms that the Jewish population has been exaggerated. If that were the case then this whole census argument can easily be dismissed as a "clerical error".

So what is it anyways? 5 million or 6 million? 3 million?

The number of Jews killed by the Nazis is not based on world wide census data. It is based on country-by-country analysis, with respect to the individual Nazi occupied territories. Trying to claim that there is a statisical aberration in an aggregate worldwide census number does not work. You need to show that there is something wrong with census data from the applicable, individual countries.

- woolfe

 

[Horatius]

You need to show that there is something wrong with census data from the applicable, individual countries.

- woolfe

That sounds like actual work; why can't you just let them quibble about some kid's socks?

 

[kageki]

The number of Jews killed by the Nazis is not based on world wide census data. It is based on country-by-country analysis, with respect to the individual Nazi occupied territories. Trying to claim that there is a statisical aberration in an aggregate worldwide census number does not work. You need to show that there is something wrong with census data from the applicable, individual countries.

- woolfe

You should be telling that to Parky then. He's the one that provided the source data and went on to pose the question about the missing Jews.

Besides that, the world wide census data is used in relation to the Holocaust casualty to claim that a third of total Jewish population was decimated. The world census data still seems relevant to the discussion.

I also just wanted to remind Parky again that it's 6 million.