• 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.

Holocaust deniers, explain this.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluespaceoddity said:
But I do have this book, I don't need your dishonest summaries of the narrative. Neither does anyone else here benefit from your distortions of the record or in fact of your continued misrepresentations of the replies you receive. If I want to be reminded what was written I can take the book of the shelf or scroll back through the threads and read the original text. Rarely do you do them justice. Do you perhaps think no-one notices?

Nobody benefits from your participation, not as a history lesson. Unless it is seen as an incentive to go to the shelves to read the actual record.
As an other insight into the lengths you go to keep finding excuses to continue denying your body of work is quite instructive.

I didn't ask you to comment on the contents of the book. That's why I didn't quote from it. I asked you for whose benefit you play your game. The reference is there. It shows that methods about which you "speculated" were in fact used. It isn't the only reference work in which the description of these methods can be found. I don't need you to explain them for me or summarize them for me. It would be nice if you used them honestly but it seems to me that deliberate manipulation rather than unfamiliarity or incredulity is the root of your problem. The reference was given to let you know I noticed. Other people provided other links and book references with similar content. They too noticed that what you write isn't quite right.
Click to expand...

I still don't know what you're talking about. You gave a reference to a book that I don't have. You say you don't want me to comment on it yet you mentioned in your response. For what purpose did you name this book?


You didn't do the findings much justice the first time you mentioned the post-genocide surveys -in the other thread full of mass graves- but a person reading your latest recaps in this thread might think you were completely unaware of the archeological work of Andrzej Kola. Or Hydrokop. Was that not intentional? Was that not to manipulate this thread?
Click to expand...

I don't mention Kola because the Kola survey was conducted to find the locations of mass graves. It wasn't designed to determine how many bodies were buried within. It wasn't a forensic investigation. It didn't find any mass graves that could be deep enough to hold the number of bodies that were allegedly buried there. As such, it cannot be cited as evidence that 600,000 people were murdered and buried there. Because the study was conducted prior to building the memorial which makes any further forensic investigation impossible, scholars can conclude that archeologically speaking we know everything about Belzec that we will ever need to know.

So Kola proved that the mass graves aren't big enough to hold 600,000 corpses. That's why I don't mention it.

The Hydrocop survey suffers from the same limitation. It didn't probe deep enough to prove the existence of mass graves large enough to hold the number of bodies. Finding mass graves isn't the same thing as finding mass graves that held between a million and four and a half million bodies.

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. When I say there haven't been any archeological or forensic studies done at these death camps, what I mean that there haven't been any that have given evidence to support the alleged death toll.

This is Gilead et al, about "some still there" at Bełżec:
"The mass graves (Fig. 8) are up to five meters deep and their fill consists mostly of charcoal and cremated remains. About a fifth of the graves also contains decomposing corpses in the state of wax-fat transformation. Grave 10 is one of the biggest (24x18m) and the deepest (5.2m). It consists mainly of decomposing corpses, and at the depth of 4.4m there is a layer of lime. Lime is found in other graves too and was probably used to accelerate decomposi- tion. Mass grave 5, 32x10x4.5m, is also one of the largest graves, but it contains only layers of burnt human remains. The burnt fill is separated by sterile sand indicating multiple fill- ing. The drilling and the analysis of sediments suggest to the archaeologists that when the centre was eliminated, there were 33 mass graves. Kola distinguishes between two groups of graves: the first and probably the earlier one, consisting of twenty-one graves clustered in the western and north-western part of Bełżec, and the others in the north-eastern section of the site (Kola, 2000: 38-40)."
Excavating Nazi Extermination Centres - Isaac Gilead, Yoram Haimi and Wojciech Mazurek (2009)

This conforms to the narrative you -for some reason- desperately try to manipulate. To the point where you occasionally "forget" about certain elements. To the point where you "subtly" alter the elements in virtually every sentence you write. It's a tedious exercise to correct each and every one of your distortions but it can't have escaped your attention that those who participate in these threads have noticed what you're doing. Even the once less familiar with the record barely recognize their own comments when you summarize them. It doubt anyone finds that convincing. Why do you persist? For whose benefit?
Click to expand...

Actually, this does NOT conform to the standard holocaust narrative. The holocaust narrative has been that there are no remains of bodies at the three death camps (T,B,S) because the Germans erased all trace of the camps when they bugged out. This is why calls for excavating the camps have been met with the response of "Why bother? There aren't any bodies to be found anyway."

(Never mind the fact that people have been claiming to find bones scattered all over the surface of these camps from 1945 to today.)

The recent studies that have acknowledged finding human remains conform with what everybody with a brain knows--you can't make half a million people disappear without a trace. Now they're acknowledging that there are human remains at the camps.

So the question now is, why no excavations? Why no studies to determine how many people are buried there? The holocaust industry has never been able to explain how so many people could be murdered at these death camps without any trace. Excavating these death camps could provide the evidence these people were murdered there. Possibly identifying bodies could bring closure to some families. I know Jews don't really care what happens to bodies after death but I marvel at their disinterest in providing evidence of the death toll in aggregate.

It's very odd that so many people who take holocaust denial so seriously would pass up the opportunity to find evidence that could refute the denier's claims.
 
Nick Terry said:
Written up in books you evidently haven't read, drawing on archives you obviously haven't visited.
Click to expand...

What one book would you recommend for learning about the holocaust?



SS court verdict regarding the actions of SS Untersturmfuehrer Max Taubner, published in Ernst Klee (ed) "Schoene Zeiten".
Click to expand...

The SS punished their own for murdering Jews. So what?
 
uke2se said:
First, prove that he's mad.

Second, because he was there and is therefore a witness, and because we have corroborating evidence of most of his story. I didn't quote mine him. You did.
Click to expand...

First, read his entire statement. Then you'll know why I say he's mad. You probably wouldn't agree though. As far as eyewitnesses for the the holocaust, Gerstein isn't that far off the track. Crazy talk is the new normal in holocaust land.

Second, if there's corroborating evidence, why do you need him? I didn't quote mine him, you guys do. If you're going to use his statement (and his statement is referenced in alot of holocaust works), use the part about twenty million Jews and a stack of clothes higher than a three story building.
 
Dogzilla said:
First, read his entire statement.
Click to expand...

I did.

Dogzilla said:
Then you'll know why I say he's mad.
Click to expand...

Yes, you say he's mad because his testimony - even the part that is verifiable using other sources - destroys the delusion you're trying to maintain.

Dogzilla said:
You probably wouldn't agree though. As far as eyewitnesses for the the holocaust, Gerstein isn't that far off the track. Crazy talk is the new normal in holocaust land.
Click to expand...

I agree. Crazy talk is the only thing coming out of you neo-Nazi holocaust denialists.

Dogzilla said:
Second, if there's corroborating evidence, why do you need him?
Click to expand...

If there's enough evidence for evolution without fitting this or that fossil in, why do we need it? To get the complete picture.

Dogzilla said:
I didn't quote mine him, you guys do.
Click to expand...

We didn't quote mine him, you did.

Dogzilla said:
If you're going to use his statement (and his statement is referenced in alot of holocaust works), use the part about twenty million Jews and a stack of clothes higher than a three story building.
Click to expand...

Why should we use the parts of his testimony that isn't verifiable using other sources? That is something a neo-Nazi holocaust denialist would do.

ETA: Please note how Dogzilla only worries about the numbers - numbers that were exaggerated by this one witness - and not the themes in the testimony. If I say I caught a fish as big as me and it turns out the fish was in fact about half as big as me, that doesn't mean I didn't catch a fish.
 
Last edited:
Dogzilla said:
Keep 'em coming! It's a common delusion that alot of very weak evidence makes strong evidence.
Click to expand...

It appears to be a common delusion among neo-Nazi holocaust denialists that the evidence for the holocaust or for gas chambers is weak.
 
Gawdzilla said:
He already did you, "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?"

(I nearly said, "My own private Idaho", but that wasn't Depp, was it?)
Click to expand...

I think that was Keanu Reeves which many women seem to think is as dreamy as Depp.

Unless you're thinking of the B-52s
 
uke2se said:
It appears to be a common delusion among neo-Nazi holocaust denialists that the evidence for the holocaust or for gas chambers is weak.
Click to expand...

Evidence for the holocaust is not weak. For the gas chambers it is.
 
Dogzilla said:
What one book would you recommend for learning about the holocaust?
Click to expand...

What one book would you recommend for learning about Holocaust revisionism?

The SS punished their own for murdering Jews. So what?
Click to expand...

So you're not reading the excerpt right.

The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated (vernichtet) and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination (Vernichtung) of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself. Real hatred of the Jews was the driving motivation for the accused.
Click to expand...

If your response to this is 'so what?' then your reading comprehension is severely lacking.

Lurkers, what do you make of Dogzilla's attempted handwave here?
 
uke2se said:
Is one book your limit this year?
Click to expand...

Dogzilla is coming perilously close to the single-study fallacy which one hears from time to time from cranks and kooks. Anyone familiar with any academic discipline knows that one is never enough. The Holocaust is no different.

It might seem terribly unfair that in order to meet the most basic level of competence and knowledge that you have to read a couple of hundred books, but I don't see that it's any different with any other topic in history, or any other topic in any other field. Them's the breaks.
 
Nick Terry said:
If your response to this is 'so what?' then your reading comprehension is severely lacking.

Lurkers, what do you make of Dogzilla's attempted handwave here?
Click to expand...

You posted an excerpt that was an explicit admission of a formal structure and organization for the execution of Jews, as well as an admission of the existence of procedural rules ("Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination (Vernichtung) of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself"). And you did it to address his specific request:
Dogzilla said:
How much documentation (and I mean actual contemporary wartime German documents or as you said, "BY THE NAZIs) explicitly says Jews were being physically exterminated? I don't mean documentation by the Nazis that prove they were anti-Semites who stripped Jews of their rights, confiscated their property, forced them into ghettos and concentration camps, and wanted them to emigrate. I don't mean documents that use ambiguous words that need to be retrofitted with sinister meaning. I don't mean the redefining of the German language so that ordinary words become euphemisms or coded language to mask the extermination of the Jews. I don't mean train schedules or passenger manifests or anything related to deportation or movement of Jews from one place to another. I mean documents that explicitly say something about physically exterminating the Jews.
Click to expand...
He got an answer to his question, then said "so what?". It's basically a case of asking a question, then pretending the answer is insignificant. It's exactly that, a handwaving away of the precise answer to the specific question asked.
 
Dogzilla said:
So Kola proved that the mass graves aren't big enough to hold 600,000 corpses.
Click to expand...


Why do I suspect that Kola summarized his findings somewhat differently?


This is why calls for excavating the camps have been met with the response of "Why bother? There aren't any bodies to be found anyway."
Click to expand...

No, that's not it. Maybe someone, somewhere on a forum has said that, but it's not part of the standard narrative. The standard narrative says that there is no need to excavate because 1) We can prove mass murder without the need for excavation and 2) the Germans destroyed enough of the bodies through cremation that the size of the graves could not be used to determine the extent of the crime. Fortunately (if that term can be applied to anything at all related to Operation Reinhard) there is ample other evidence available to make at least a rough estimate.

It might be off plus or minus 100,000 people, but it's the best we can do. As a percentage, the error is not very large.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom