• 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.
Pacal said:
Only if you conflate Germans with Nazis.

I've been to the Nitzor site and your hallucinating or just spouting nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yes, I too would like to know where exactly Nizkor promotes hatred of Germans, and why the germans in this thread doesn't see it that way.

Dogzilla? Over to you.
 
Saggy said:
Nonsense, I didn't pick just any pathological liar, the pathological liar I picked is the name most associated with the holohoax, the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, and the first director of the USHMM hoax museum.
Click to expand...

Yet Wiesel gave no evidence in any trial or war crimes investigation, and didn't write down a memoir until more than a decade after the war. The Holocaust was proven without Wiesel, and that means you need to widen your scope if you want to avoid making yourself look like a complete *********** idiot.

Further, there is no credible evidence to disregard.
Click to expand...

Prove this, without creating a circular argument.

That is why pathological liars like Wiesel are the embodiment of the hoax.
Click to expand...

Yet we can clearly see that Wiesel is not needed to prove the Holocaust. He isn't even a direct witness to gas chambers or anything like that.

If there is a singe credible Jewish eyewitness, name him/her !
Click to expand...

That's already been done, but you ikeep on babbling about Wiesel, who is not a direct witness to mass murder.

The real question is why you insist on receiving the name of a single witness. In news journalism, the two source rule is much emphasised. Editors won't run stories unless they get a second source corroborating the first and confirming the story. In Scottish law, there is a two witness rule in certain situations. That goes back to Roman law, one way or another. Common sense, really.

Some time ago we posed the Wiernik Challenge, which was naturally ducked by all the deniers. So it is probably a similarly forlorn hope to expect you to take the Krzepicki, Wiernik and Strawczynski Challenge, where we have three witnesses to mass murder at Treblinka who wrote some of the earliest accounts and did so at length.

Abraham Krzepicki gave his testimony after escaping in 1942. The account was buried in a milk-can on the site of the Warsaw ghetto in 1943, and wasn't dug up until 1951. So it is entirely independent of the accounts of Wiernik and Strawczynski, written in 1944. All these accounts were written before the Russians arrived.

They're not the only testimonies to Treblinka, or the only sources we have about the camp. But if you cannot cope with three testimonies, then you really are up **** creek without a paddle.
 
The foolishness of the Holohoax is the breaking it down into a multitude small incidents that by themselves could be believable.

But when you demand that those incidents were part of a master plan to exterminate Jews it doesn't float.
 
Nick Terry said:
Yet Wiesel gave no evidence in any trial or war crimes investigation, and didn't write down a memoir until more than a decade after the war. The Holocaust was proven without Wiesel, and that means you need to widen your scope if you want to avoid making yourself look like a complete *********** idiot.



Prove this, without creating a circular argument.



Yet we can clearly see that Wiesel is not needed to prove the Holocaust. He isn't even a direct witness to gas chambers or anything like that.



That's already been done, but you ikeep on babbling about Wiesel, who is not a direct witness to mass murder.

The real question is why you insist on receiving the name of a single witness. In news journalism, the two source rule is much emphasised. Editors won't run stories unless they get a second source corroborating the first and confirming the story. In Scottish law, there is a two witness rule in certain situations. That goes back to Roman law, one way or another. Common sense, really.

Some time ago we posed the Wiernik Challenge, which was naturally ducked by all the deniers. So it is probably a similarly forlorn hope to expect you to take the Krzepicki, Wiernik and Strawczynski Challenge, where we have three witnesses to mass murder at Treblinka who wrote some of the earliest accounts and did so at length.

Abraham Krzepicki gave his testimony after escaping in 1942. The account was buried in a milk-can on the site of the Warsaw ghetto in 1943, and wasn't dug up until 1951. So it is entirely independent of the accounts of Wiernik and Strawczynski, written in 1944. All these accounts were written before the Russians arrived.

They're not the only testimonies to Treblinka, or the only sources we have about the camp. But if you cannot cope with three testimonies, then you really are up **** creek without a paddle.
Click to expand...
Krzepicki is a good addition to the Wiernik / Strawczynski question I asked earlier.

When Saggy has explained the pathological lies of Wiernik, Krzepicki, and Strawczynski, he can then move on to another three witnesses to an event, Ponar. In this case, the witness account of a non-Jewish Pole, Kazimierz Sakowicz, could well be added to the accounts of the Jewish Ponar survivors, Yudis Trojak and Pesye Schloss. As Nick indicates, in fact, so soon as a denier chooses one witness, other witnesses will be introduced willy-nilly to corroborate or challenge the first witness. And in some cases, there will also be documents and other evidence.
 
Saggy said:
Further, there is no credible evidence to disregard.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about your claim of that all media, everywhere, is Jewish controlled? Because, yes, there is no credible evidence—and certainly no at evidence at all has been provided by you thus far—to support your conspiracy theory.

Every time you start bleating about how there is no evidence for the Holocaust, I'm going to remind you of the utter lack of evidence for your vast, worldwide Jewish-controlled media statements.
 
Last edited:
And also the evidence for 1) Nizkor being a hate site promoting hatred of Germans and 2) Germans viewing Nizkor as an anti-German hate site seems to be slow in coming. Perhaps our intrepid Revs are having trouble finding it. Or maybe they aren't even looking for any evidence since they feel that with Nizkor, like the Holocaust, they can just claim whatever they wish, like the famed Moscow Forgery Factory of little grey rabbit's fevered imagination, without any substantiation whatsoever, so long as what they claim conforms to their own rather obvious biases.
 
Cyrix686 said:
Clayton, haven't you read any of this yet? It really is Day One stuff. Ask Seven-Up if he is not too stingy to let you have a loan of his copy of the, "Good Old Days."
Click to expand...

Just don't be too surprised that some of the pages are stuck together.
 
TSR said:
.
Hey, DZ, not only did no one 'demand' the evidence you claimed we would, you seem to have forgotten the responses you *did* get altogther.

Care to keep digging the holes for those pecan trees deeper, or come up with an *actual* contemporary historical event for which you do not have to pretend that a very small (or non-existent) body of suspect evidence is equivalent to multiple sources of various types of evidence confirmed by generations of historians of all stripes and by every court of any jurisdiction which has ruled on the evidence itself?

Or you could man up, and admit what everyone here already knows, including yourself -- that your whine about double standards merely documents your own standards.

Or continue to run away from arguably the best equivalent to the Holocaust, the Great Crime.

The original ball has sadly crossed over, and an unscrupulous land speculator from the "Cooperative for Holocaust Ignorance Made Plain, See?" is trying to get the city to condemn the home where three generations of balls were raised, in order to put in a matching pair of gas station convenience stores. They call it Project Double Standards.
.
Click to expand...


OK. Help me understand you're reasoning here: Give me one example, other than those we've already discussed, where 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' is a valid statement of principle and one example of where it is not.
 
Wroclaw said:
Yes, that's right.

And no, I'm not threatening Clayton. I'm suggesting that he could meet me in person so I could pose this question, and he'd be forced to actually answer it, because he seems too chicken to answer it here.



Yes, because we all know that it's only possible to kill one person with a gun.

In 1927, this happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Care to reframe your point?



Physical force goes a long way, DZ.
Click to expand...


So were you talking literally or figuratively and, if figuratively, what did you literally mean? The Germans used bombs as well?
 
Nick Terry said:
The real question is why you insist on receiving the name of a single witness. In news journalism, the two source rule is much emphasised.
Click to expand...

The reason I want the name of a single hoax witness is so that we can proceed to demolish his/her lies. We can't address the lies of 200, or 50,000, in one post, but we can deal with one witness right here.

Let's have the name, and a brief synopsis of his/her lies. Then, we'll have some fun.

You seem to think that 200, or 50,000 Zionists telling the same lie makes it true. Doesn't work that way.

The truth is that Wiesel, Wiernik, Bomba, Rosenberg, Meuller, are the best known hoax liars is that there are no credible liar to be found.

Then, let's watch Spielberg's 'The Last Days' again, and review all the hoax university professors that vetted it. Perhaps someone can recall their names, they all vetted Zisblatt. Zisblatt's absurd testimony has the full authority of the 'experts' from the USHMM, Yad Vashem, and Speilberg's long list of advisors.

Every last one of them a degenerate liar, the likes of which the world has never before seen.
 
Saggy said:
The reason I want the name of a single hoax witness is so that we can proceed to demolish his/her lies. We can't address the lies of 200, or 50,000, in one post, but we can deal with one witness right here.

Let's have the name, and a brief synopsis of his/her lies. Then, we'll have some fun.

You seem to think that 200, or 50,000 Zionists telling the same lie makes it true. Doesn't work that way.

The truth is that Wiesel, Wiernik, Bomba, Rosenberg, Meuller, are the best known hoax liars is that there are no credible liar to be found.

Then, let's watch Spielberg's 'The Last Days' again, and review all the hoax university professors that vetted it. Perhaps someone can recall their names, they all vetted Zisblatt. Zisblatt's absurd testimony has the full authority of the 'experts' from the USHMM, Yad Vashem, and Speilberg's long list of advisors.

Every last one of them a degenerate liar, the likes of which the world has never before seen.
Click to expand...

I doubt that any of the Holocaust people have ever been concerned or lost any sleep over these obvious lies or liars. The consequences of a failed agenda loom dark.
 
Saggy said:
The reason I want the name of a single hoax witness is so that we can proceed to demolish his/her lies. We can't address the lies of 200, or 50,000, in one post, but we can deal with one witness right here.
Click to expand...

200+ have been named. Fire away.

Or you could take the challenge presented to you with three names.

Don't forget, it is your task to prove every single witness wrong. Even if you prove that one witness is a liar (which you haven't even begun to do) there's still the next and the next and the next. Best get crackin'.
 
Dogzilla said:
OK. Help me understand you're reasoning here: Give me one example, other than those we've already discussed, where 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' is a valid statement of principle and one example of where it is not.
Click to expand...
.
That's not my reasoning, so I feel no need to give any examples of it at all.

*You* made the claim, *you* give the examples. The problem is, the examples you have given do *not* have equivalent or even similar bodies of evidence.

You've been given two examples which do have, one of which you stated you could not be bothered with, the other you have yet to even acknowledge.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

My reasoning is very simple: you continue to pretend that there is an absence of evidence for the Holocaust as a whole, and so have offered two invalid comparisons (neither of which supports a double standard by anyone but yourself).
.
 
Saggy said:
The reason I want the name of a single hoax witness is so that we can proceed to demolish his/her lies. We can't address the lies of 200, or 50,000, in one post, but we can deal with one witness right here.

Let's have the name, and a brief synopsis of his/her lies. Then, we'll have some fun.

You seem to think that 200, or 50,000 Zionists telling the same lie makes it true. Doesn't work that way.

The truth is that Wiesel, Wiernik, Bomba, Rosenberg, Meuller, are the best known hoax liars is that there are no credible liar to be found.

Then, let's watch Spielberg's 'The Last Days' again, and review all the hoax university professors that vetted it. Perhaps someone can recall their names, they all vetted Zisblatt. Zisblatt's absurd testimony has the full authority of the 'experts' from the USHMM, Yad Vashem, and Speilberg's long list of advisors.

Every last one of them a degenerate liar, the likes of which the world has never before seen.
Click to expand...
Well this is both funny and disingenuous, for, whilst Nick Terry gave you 200, I gave you 3, to watch you try to demolish their testimony one by one. And yet you keep ignoring those 3 . . . why?

To reiterate, at the same time, the more general point, in just one trial, the Auschwitz trial, the prosecution mainly relied on witnesses from the camp, both Jewish and non-Jewish, many of them assigned to the Political Department or the Haftlingskrankenbau (HKB), and SS men, including SS judges. Before the trial, over 400 former inmates of Auschwitz-Birkenau and SS men from the camp were interrogated. Approximately 250 witnesses testified at the trial. The original complainant was scarcely involved, as authorities found him not fully credible, and witnesses like Walter Scheerer (who testified about phenol injections) and Walter Petzold (who testified that he had seen Arthur Breitweiser shake pellets into the first gas chamber in the camp) were deemed not credible. One means the court used to test credibility was a "field trip" to the Stammlager to confirm the layout as described by witnesses as well places from which witnesses reported having observed mass executions and other atrocities. The court had to sort through some discrepancies in statements given at various times, as well as come differences in testimony from the broad number of witnesses. The charges and testimony contained very specific details about the 24 individuals on trial as well as the layout of the camp, the behavior of camp authorities, punishments of the prisoners, camp regulations, the demeanor and zeal of camp guards, transports, which SS men served ramp duty, and so on. Under the court's rules, the judges themselves interrogated the witnesses about what they testified to. The court disregarded testimonies that did not stand up to questions, that were based on hearsay, that conflicted with other testimony, or that had other problems. Still, the court found there to be credible witness testimony (along with some documents) to convict 17 defendants of murder, aiding and abetting murder, or joint murder of 1000s of victims in the camp. That is, the court 1) specifically decided, based on the factors mentioned above, that some witnesses were not credible but also 2) found by far most of the witnesses who testified to be credible - and not just on the events in the camp but as to the roles of specific individuals standing trial.

As Nick Terry has explained in terms of doing history, trials too use multiple witnesses where possible; the Auschwitz trial prosecutors were able to call 100s of witnesses whom the court found credible. Now, my guess is that the court spent more time and care with their testimony than you have with any of those whom you call pathological liars.

Again, Oscar Strawczynski. To start with. Then Yudis Trojak and Pesye Schloss.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
The reason I want the name of a single hoax witness is so that we can proceed to demolish his/her lies.
Click to expand...


The reason I want you to name one witness to this Jewish conspiracy which controls all of the media is so that we can proceed to demolish his/her lies.


Saggy said:
Let's have the name, and a brief synopsis of his/her lies. Then, we'll have some fun.
Click to expand...


Let's have the name, and a brief synopsis of his/her lies. Then, we'll have some fun.


Saggy said:
You seem to think that 200, or 50,000 Zionists telling the same lie makes it true. Doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...


You seem to think that by claiming that Jews control all the media it makes it true. Doesn't work that way.
 
uke2se said:
Yes, I too would like to know where exactly Nizkor promotes hatred of Germans, and why the germans in this thread doesn't see it that way. Dogzilla? Over to you.
Click to expand...

I would like to introduce as a an argument, that holocaust deniers are used to spread hate, based on their own conferences in Iran.

The Iranian IPIS organises the main conference for the world's holocaust deniers. President Ahmadinejad welcomes the delegates from the KKK, Hezbollah, Graf, Krege, Bradley Smith and all the famous holocaust deniers and talks about "open debate". However Amadinejad makes press releases on behalf of his guests about eliminating zionisn and wiping Israel from the map. So what was discussed by the delegates at the Iranian holocaust deniers conference? Well who knows? You cannot get transcriptions of any of there speeches. There is an audio recording of David Duke saying there were no gas chambers and a You Tube of part of Robert Fuerisson speech but that's it. Not even the holocaust deniers can get transcripts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUb0RM1FEXc
(watch the paid stooge asking questions)

So in other words, Ahmadinejad gets all the main holocaust deniers together where he can control them. Blocks their own speeches and debates from being read and makes anti-Israeli press releases using them as his controlled puppets. This flops politically, so Ahmadinejad sacks the head of the IPIS. Four years later Bradley Smith is trying to find any member of the Iranian government who would give him money. They won't. Can Dogzilla, Clayton, Saggy produce the transcripts from their Iranian international conference on the holocaust? Do they mind being used by President Ahmadinejad in Iran?

http://bradleysmithsblog.blogspot.com/2010_10_01_archive.html
 
Nick Terry said:
This is what is commonly known as moving the goalposts, which is generally held to make the person performing this trick a dishonest sack of ****.
Click to expand...

And how is that moving the goalposts?


Your point, such as it was, claimed that there was no information known about Nazi extermination camps before the end of the war, which is flat-out false. Therefore your attempted comparison with alleged covered-up alien autopsies - ones supposedly covered up for something like 20 times the length of time that the Nazis tried (and failed) to keep extermination camps secret during WWII - can be dismissed.
Click to expand...

First of all, there wasn't and still isn't any information about Nazi extermination camps because there weren't any Nazi extermination camps. But you are correct to say there were rumors about Germans killing Jews in certain camps throughout the war and there were rumors about just about everybody killing Jews going back to the beginning of the century. But your dismissal of the analogy would be apropos if there were also not rumors about a flying saucer crashing in the desert near Roswell. There were in fact rumors about Roswell going back to day one. There's also the fact that Roswell was a one shot deal that happened in one place with very few witnesses whereas the holocaust was in continuous operation for several years over a much wider area in front of many more people. Covering up Roswell would much easier than covering up the holocaust. So Shermers personal incredulity about covering up Roswell fails when he sees no problem keeping the holocaust a secret.

This is likewise false.

Oh, that's easy. You just displayed blatant double standards by assuming that the confessions were coerced, rather than actually presenting evidence to support this baseless assumption of yours.

The only person using entirely different standards of evidence here is, I'm afraid to say, you.
Click to expand...


OK, then perhaps maybe you can help me out here. In the field of historical research, give me an example where 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' would be a valid principle and one where it would not be valid.
 
LemmyCaution said:
Well this is both funny and disingenuous, for, whilst Nick Terry gave you 200, I gave you 3, to watch you try to demolish their testimony one by one. And yet you keep ignoring those 3 . . . why?

To reiterate, at the same time, the more general point, in just one trial, the Auschwitz trial, the prosecution mainly relied on witnesses from the camp, both Jewish and non-Jewish, many of them assigned to the Political Department or the Haftlingskrankenbau (HKB), and SS men, including SS judges. Before the trial, over 400 former inmates of Auschwitz-Birkenau and SS men from the camp were interrogated. Approximately 250 witnesses testified at the trial. The original complainant was scarcely involved, as authorities found him not fully credible, and witnesses like Walter Scheerer (who testified about phenol injections) and Walter Petzold (who testified that he had seen Arthur Breitweiser shake pellets into the first gas chamber in the camp) were deemed not credible. One means the court used to test credibility was a "field trip" to the Stammlager to confirm the layout as described by witnesses as well places from which witnesses reported having observed mass executions and other atrocities. The court had to sort through some discrepancies in statements given at various times, as well as come differences in testimony from the broad number of witnesses. The charges and testimony contained very specific details about the 24 individuals on trial as well as the layout of the camp, the behavior of camp authorities, punishments of the prisoners, camp regulations, the demeanor and zeal of camp guards, transports, which SS men served ramp duty, and so on. Under the court's rules, the judges themselves interrogated the witnesses about what they testified to. The court disregarded testimonies that did not stand up to questions, that were based on hearsay, that conflicted with other testimony, or that had other problems. Still, the court found there to be credible witness testimony (along with some documents) to convict 17 defendants of murder, aiding and abetting murder, or joint murder of 1000s of victims in the camp. That is, the court 1) specifically decided, based on the factors mentioned above, that some witnesses were not credible but also 2) found by far most of the witnesses who testified to be credible - and not just on the events in the camp but as to the roles of specific individuals standing trial.

As Nick Terry has explained in terms of doing history, trials too use multiple witnesses where possible; the Auschwitz trial prosecutors were able to call 100s of witnesses whom the court found credible. Now, my guess is that the court spent more time and care with their testimony than you have with any of those whom you call pathological liars.

Again, Oscar Strawczynski. To start with. Then Yudis Trojak and Pesye Schloss.
Click to expand...

Oscar Strawczynski talks a lot about an orchestra at Treblinka - I wonder if this was confirmed in trials etc. Of course a lot survivors mention orchestras - but there is a lot of variability, eg Wiernik "Women were forced to sing in choirs, while the orchestra consisted of three musicians who were compelled to play each day at roll call after the whippings."

Another Oscar special is this:
Once Lalka was strolling along the platform with a double- barrelled shotgun in his hand and Barry in his wake. He discovered a Jew in front of him, a neighbour of mine from Czestochowa, by the name of Steiner.



Without a second thought, he aimed the gun at the man’s buttocks and fired. Steiner fell amidst cries of pain. Lalka laughed. He approached him, commanded him to get up, pull down his pants, and then glanced at the wound.



The Jew was beside himself with pain. His buttocks were oozing blood from the gashes caused by the lead bullets. But Lalka was not satisfied. He waved his hand and said, “Damn it, the balls haven’t been harmed!”



He continued his stroll to look for a new victim.”
Click to expand...

More daft claims of Treblinka and music
http://holocaustmusic.ort.org/places/camps/death-camps/treblinka/lullaby-for-my-little/
Kolysanka Dla Synka W Krematorium

Sung here in Polish by the former political prisoner Aleksander Kulisiewicz, the song 'Lullaby for my little son in the crematorium' was originally written in Yiddish as 'A viglid far mayn yingele in krematoryum' by the Jewish prisoner Aron Liebeskind in Treblinka. Liebeskind passed the song on to Kulisiewicz himself in Sachsenhausen before he was deported to Auschwitz in 1943.
Click to expand...

Do we know how Aron Liebeskind managed to pass the song onto Kulisiewicz at all?



Incidentally Erich Hunt asks an interesting question
"The Star of David on the front wall of Treblinka's gas house, and the Hebrew inscriptions on the curtain that hung at the entrance that read, "This is the gate through which the righteous pass." Which one is true, believers?"

As ever, I await Mr Caution's answer with keen anticipation - when he pulls his finger out and responds.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom