• 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.
There is a lot more that could be said about the song LGR. Though it's largely a waste of time going through any of it with someone who writes, "Pure Hoaxsterism."
 
Gwynpaine said:
Every week I look into a revisionist site; it makes sense for me to do so because I do not regard revisionism as a mad idea. A mad idea should command our interest only if it is widely believed, eg, Creationism. But the revisionists are a small harmless moribund sect who, but for their persecution by Zionists, might arguably be as forgotten as the Moonlanding deniers have now become.

The most interesting – or least puerile - thing on Codoh’s front page this week is a contribution by Carolyn Yeager, continuing her war against Elie Wiesel

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6632&sid=c2fcf293c87019aa68eae7744aceec15#p47743

Yeager has a long way to go if she wants to convince anyone outside her sect that Wiesel was never present in Buchenwald. She would not have far to go, I think, to convince mainstream opinion that Wiesel was not present in the famous photograph that he claimed to be in. Within her post at the link above Yeager has linked us to that famous photograph.

The group photo taken on 16 April 1945 shows Buchenwald survivors in hut 56. Wiesel is supposed to have been in the boys’s hut 66. The puzzled face with the receding hairline, which Wiesel has designated as his own, does not to my eye resemble any known image of him. Less subjectively, I would have thought, it is certainly not the face of any sixteen-year old boy. And in fact, most of these lived-in faces do not belong to sixteen year old boys. Is anyone willing to argue that this is indeed the face of Elie?

Yeagar writes:



Yeagar offers two other photos of, she says, Elie as 15 year old youth before imprisonment, and one of him nearly 17 taken in Paris no later than October 1945. The latter is recognisably our famous Elie. In less than six months he has grown a very good head of hair. But for all I know, that might be possible in adolescence, when hair grows rapidly. She notes that Wiesel claimed to have gone into hospital three days after liberation, which would be two days before this photo was taken. But the three days could be written off as an approximation of memory. The most compelling evidence that the mature puzzled face does not belong to Wiesel remains the face itself.

In the bottom left corner of the group photo is another, indubitably youthful face which Yeagar claims for that other Pinocchio, Myklos Gruener (who nevertheless was also supposed to have been in Childrens Bock). She offers no evidence of for this here. I shall continue to regard the various anomalies in the Wiesel biography merely as unexplained puzzles, until I have been shown an explanation which does not generate even bigger puzzles. It is one thing to show that Wiesel was a fibber and a mythomane. It is quite another to prove that he was an outright imposter. But anything which reduces the credibility of this sanctified humbug is all in a good cause.
Click to expand...

Face it, lying to the goyim is like water off a duck's back.

Deception in Business

It is a grave sin to practice any kind of deception whatsoever against a Jew. Against a Gentile it is only forbidden to practice direct deception. Indirect deception is allowed, unless it is likely to cause hostility towards Jews or insult to the Jewish religion. The paradigmatic example is mistaken calculation of the price during a purchase. If a Jew makes a mistake unfavorable to himself, it is one's religious duty to correct him. If a Gentile is spotted making such a mistake, one need not let him know about it, but say "I rely on your calculation," so as to forestall his hostility in case he subsequently discovers his own mistake.

Fraud

It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable price. However, "Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written 'Do no defraud each man his brother' [the Halakhah interprets all such idioms as referring exclusively to one's fellow Jew.]

Theft and Robbery

Robbery of a Gentile by a Jew is not forbidden outright, but only under certain circumstances such as "when the Gentiles are not under our rule," but is permitted "when they are under our rule." Rabbinical authorities differ among themselves as to the precise details of the circumstances under which a Jew may rob a Gentile, but the whole debate is concerned only with the relative power of Jews and Gentiles rather than with universal considerations of justice and humanity.

Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Two Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1994), 89-90, 117 n49.
Click to expand...


http://library.flawlesslogic.com/goyim.htm
 
Wiesel again? 200+ named witnesses. Tens of thousands of unnamed witnesses.

Go.
 
TSR said:
.
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).
.
Click to expand...


OK, let's try it this way: Is 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' a valid statement of principle or not?
 
Dogzilla said:
OK, let's try it this way: Is 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' a valid statement of principle or not?
Click to expand...
.
No, let's try it this way: can you show any body of evidence which was handled differently than that for the Holocaust? That *was* your claim...
.
 
TSR said:
.
No, let's try it this way: can you show any body of evidence which was handled differently than that for the Holocaust? That *was* your claim...
.
Click to expand...

Yes I can. I did. That's what started this whole pretending to misunderstand/goalpost moving game so common among adherents of your particular brand of woo.
 
Dogzilla said:
Yes I can. I did. That's what started this whole pretending to misunderstand/goalpost moving game so common among adherents of your particular brand of woo.
Click to expand...

Projection never looks good in a debate.
 
Dogzilla said:
Yes I can. I did. That's what started this whole pretending to misunderstand/goalpost moving game so common among adherents of your particular brand of woo.
Click to expand...

You can´t even prove any Allied atrocity to the same standards as you demand the Holocaust be proven to you.
 
Chaos said:
You can´t even prove any Allied atrocity to the same standards as you demand the Holocaust be proven to you.
Click to expand...


Ahhhh! But I satisfied a burden of proof that would be acceptable in holocaust historiography; although I'll admit to stooping to humorous hyperbole to make the point.

Since my original photographic evidence of allied atrocities was dismissed by invoking an accusation about something that deniers use all the time or maybe some of the time, like some sort of a tactic or weapon or something. I don't remember. But anyway, it involved deniers and something else. And then the photograph was declared a fake or a forgery or whatever.

So I came back with even more substantial evidence: I showed you photographs and I told you what you were seeing. Why don't you address my evidence instead of declaring an unsupported conclusion about my ability to prove any allied atrocity?

Or better yet. Let's go back to the first photograph--the one that was declared a fake. If a denier said a piece of evidence is a forgery or a fake, they will have an answer if somebody asks them "What is it about it that makes you think it's a fake?"

So what your answer to that question? What is it about that first phot5o that makes it unacceptable?
 
Dogzilla said:
Ahhhh! But I satisfied a burden of proof that would be acceptable in holocaust historiography; although I'll admit to stooping to humorous hyperbole to make the point.
Click to expand...

You satisfied a burden of proof that, by your own standards, means that the atrocities never happened.

So, do you admit that you belief the atrocities never happened, or do you admit that you are holding the Holocaust to a different standard than you are holding Allied atrocities?

Since my original photographic evidence of allied atrocities was dismissed by invoking an accusation about something that deniers use all the time or maybe some of the time, like some sort of a tactic or weapon or something. I don't remember. But anyway, it involved deniers and something else. And then the photograph was declared a fake or a forgery or whatever.
Click to expand...

So? Holocaust deniers simply declare everything "forgeries" and "degenerate lies" that proves things they do not want to believe. Why is that suddenly not okay when it is applied to a different subject?

So I came back with even more substantial evidence: I showed you photographs and I told you what you were seeing. Why don't you address my evidence instead of declaring an unsupported conclusion about my ability to prove any allied atrocity?
Click to expand...

Why would I want to address anything? You have shown me nothing that Holocaust deniers standards of evidence cannot dismiss out of hand as forgeries and lies.

Or better yet. Let's go back to the first photograph--the one that was declared a fake. If a denier said a piece of evidence is a forgery or a fake, they will have an answer if somebody asks them "What is it about it that makes you think it's a fake?"
Click to expand...

And they never give a satisfying answer.

So what your answer to that question? What is it about that first phot5o that makes it unacceptable?
Click to expand...

What makes this photo unacceptable is that, by Holocaust denier standards of evidence, I can freely declare it to be a forgery, for no reason whatsoever.
So, unless deniers gives satisfying answers about every single piece of evidence they declares forgeries and lies, I continue to apply their own standards to supposed evidence about Allied atrocities.
 
I do not understand UK2se post re Wiesel, which is rather free of detail, but I gather he does not believe that Wiesel was an imposter. Neither do I. The precise question is whether Wiesel was telling the truth about that photo. UK2SE is saying that to his eyes the mature puzzled face could belong to the sixteen-year old Weisel. But I can understand that he does not want to talk about it
 
For the vast body of photographs and documents which deniers declare to be forgeries - under the doctrine of IFWF - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of forgery or tampering. A contrasting photographic example is the famous Yezhov photo as well as photos of Trotsky. In these cases, we can see, from negatives, original and altered version. Much of what passes for photo analysis among deniers is conspiracy theorizing about digital versions of photographs, with all the problems inherent in using these kinds of copies. That there are many Holocaust photographs incorrectly captioned or used on certain Websites without care doesn't speak to the photographs themselves, nor to scholars' uses of these documents; rather, it speaks to the nature of the "democratic" Web. Janina Struk's Photographing the Holocaust is a good treatment o the use of photographs in constructing historical understanding of this period and a good caution against "fundamentalist" uses of photography. That said, along with other sources, as with the Liepaja photos or the famous Birkenau SK photos, or photos documenting mass graves, this kind of evidence is quite useful and not so glibly dismissed as our deniers pretend with their Moscow Forgery Factories and other flights of fancy. In the case of Liepaja, for example, we know a great deal about the shooting of the photos, including the brand of camera, and how they came to be printed, along with narrative accounts of the actions which the photos record. Deniers would not be taken as charlatans and clowns if they were to document their claims about forgeries in the same manner. That they don't speaks to the absence of evidence for their claims as much as their incompetence in this area.
 
Gwynpaine said:
I do not understand UK2se post re Wiesel, which is rather free of detail, but I gather he does not believe that Wiesel was an imposter. Neither do I. The precise question is whether Wiesel was telling the truth about that photo. UK2SE is saying that to his eyes the mature puzzled face could belong to the sixteen-year old Weisel. But I can understand that he does not want to talk about it
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am reading a different post from uke2se, but I took his reply to steer the discussion back to the question of witness credibility. The subtext, I thought, was that, since Wiesel is rarely used as a witness in scholarly treatments of the genocide, and there are many, many other credible witnesses to the genocide, including the 200 Nick referred to, he was questioning why deniers and those who take denial seriously focus so much on this one witness, a fallacy whether or not this witness is lying. Of course, uke2se should speak for himself, but it is not clear to me at all how you made the jump from his post on the Wiesel ploy to your conclusions.
 
Last edited:
LemmyCaution said:
For the vast body of photographs and documents which deniers declare to be forgeries - under the doctrine of IFWF - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of forgery or tampering. A contrasting photographic example is the famous Yezhov photo as well as photos of Trotsky. In these cases, we can see, from negatives, original and altered version. Much of what passes for photo analysis among deniers is conspiracy theorizing about digital versions of photographs, with all the problems inherent in using these kinds of copies.
Click to expand...

Outside of an odd CODOH post is there anything you can point to indicate this?

The most sustained criticism of any photo is the "little train" photo, but no criticisms of this photo can be possibly explained by digitalisation. You seem to be simply lifting this argument from the 9/11 forum where it can be legitimately applied to some stuff out there.

This is not the case with Holocaust Denial - but perhaps you think this claim makes you seem highly intelligent (as well as being exceptionally well travelled)
 
Saggy complained that Nick Terry's 200 witnesses were too many for him to deal with and he wanted one so that he could really dig into the pathological lies of one witness in a deep way.

Yet Saggy remains silent about a witness whom Nick and I both named:

LemmyCaution said:
- I am curious about the lies told by Oscar Strawczynski - and even a comparison of his account of his time in Treblinka to that of Wiernik. Can you be so kind as to share with us the lies of Strawczynski and proof of his lying?
Click to expand...


Nick Terry said:
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...

Oscar Strawczynski. Silence is not a very effective way to drive the final nail in the holocoffin. Nor is lifting a minor discrepancy here and there between witness accounts. In fact, what Saggy needs to do with Strawczynski and other contemporary accounts is to explain the degree to which they match and whether significant convergence comes from Moscow Forgery Factories or other coordination - or characterizes independently given accounts. If independent accounts match significantly, that is a far more interesting point than minor discrepancies between the accounts, which, in fact, are to be expected, judging from other contexts in which witness testimony is used.

Or Saggy can continue, with Strawczynski, to
proceed to demolish his/her lies
Click to expand...
by using the silent treatment, repeating his initial claim without substantiation, setting new rules for discussing a rather straightforward example as he requested, or moving on to other topics.
 
Last edited:
little grey rabbit said:
Outside of an odd CODOH post is there anything you can point to indicate this?

The most sustained criticism of any photo is the "little train" photo, but no criticisms of this photo can be possibly explained by digitalisation. You seem to be simply lifting this argument from the 9/11 forum where it can be legitimately applied to some stuff out there.

This is not the case with Holocaust Denial - but perhaps you think this claim makes you seem highly intelligent (as well as being exceptionally well travelled)
Click to expand...
Why would this post be about my intelligence? Why should my post occasion such a personal remark rather than your sticking to the substance? My post is about what it says it's about: claims of forgery in Holocaust documents. You know as well as I the examples I am talking about - I gave a couple, Liepaja for instance - in that long discussions of these precise themes took place on a forum I am not permitted by JREF rules to link to, in threads there I am not permitted to link to. In these cases, deniers sometimes made leaps from digital versions of photographs, drawing unwarranted conclusions that could be drawn only from inspecting negatives.

I do not visit 911 forums, so it would be impossible for me to life anything from them.
 
Last edited:
LemmyCaution said:
Why would this post be about my intelligence? Why should my post occasion such a personal remark rather than your sticking to the substance? My post is about what it says it's about: claims of forgery in Holocaust documents. You know as well as I the examples I am talking about - I gave a couple, Liepaja for instance - in that long discussions of these precise themes took place on a forum I am not permitted by JREF rules to link to, in threads there I am not permitted to link to.
Click to expand...

What forum is this? Stormfront?

Come on Mr Caution, just admit it you pinched it from the 9/11 forums and lets all move on and discuss more relevant things.
 
Dogzilla said:
Why don't you address my evidence instead of declaring an unsupported conclusion about my ability to prove any allied atrocity?
Click to expand...

This is exactly what we are asking you and your buddies to do when evidence for the holocaust is supplied, rather than just scream "degenerate lies" or "fake".

The hope is that by turning denier methods on you, you will eventually realise that they are intellectually dishonest.

Let's just say that my hopes are not high...

If a denier said a piece of evidence is a forgery or a fake, they will have an answer if somebody asks them "What is it about it that makes you think it's a fake?"
Click to expand...

I can't remember a single denier on these boards ever having done this. Can you provide an example?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom