Soviets Faked Footage At Auschwitz - Page 3

realpaladin · 11th February 2010, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Saggy

It was an excellent post, except that it was completely off topic.

Great. Does that mean you will answer my ontopic questions?

Marduk · 11th February 2010, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Saggy

It was an excellent post, except that it was completely off topic. I'll just note briefly that the photos of the children in the camps at the end of the war completely disprove the holocaust lies .... so I was surprised that you posted them. I'll feature them in a future thread. I won't comment on them further in this thread. Or you can start a thread with those pictures, but, I think it will have to be a 'revisionist' thread !

ok so the dead bodies and the shoes were all faked, but the kids looking happy when they were set free from german control were real ?

ok but you didn't adress the post at all, just moved the goalposts
1. who faked them and why ?
2. why would the kids be happy that they were set free ?

whenever youre ready
thanks

realpaladin · 11th February 2010, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Budly

Well, the Soviets faked evidence at Auschwitz: A bucket of human heads, and next to it a pillory-device where your neck is going though a small cut-out hole in a piece of wood. And where is Nick Terry and Jonathan Harrison to comment on this?

Prove it is fake.

Originally Posted by Budly

The Americans were fakers too: Buchenwald: a table with a supposed human skin lampshade and two shrunken heads.

Prove it is fake.

Originally Posted by Budly

The OSS (wartime CIA) had 16,000 employees, but the Soviet counterpart had 70,000 employees. PWD-SHAEF (Psyche Warfare Department had 1,000+ employees, so this is one way this stuff comes about.

Number of employees doth not prove of faking make.

Originally Posted by Budly

To answer Darat's question: fake in terms of the Soviets put the heads in the bucket, and filmed it with the implication that the Soviets came into the camp and found it like that.

So, even if I would accept that, (and where did the heads come from, did they bring them?) does that mean the facts they found are fake?

Saggy... in case you missed reading the subtitle of this forum... over here you have to put your money where your mouth is. You have to build up your claim with evidence.

ToddH · 11th February 2010, 11:40 AM

C'mon Budly and Saggy. Just admit you hate the Joos and that you're glad that millions of them were killed during the Holocaust. Do you not have the courage to stand up for what you believe?

timhau · 11th February 2010, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by TSR

.
Untrue: The Lachout Document, the Hitler Diaries, the Leuchter Report, all the hype over the Krege Report, that idiot youtube video supposedly showing people survivng for hours in a room exposed to Zyklon B...

And all of it trivially and rapidly demonstrated to be suspect at the least, if not outright lies.
.

But... but... that just can't be. Saggy said he questions everything! If what you said was true, he'd only question everything that makes his beloved Nazis look bad. It just can't be!

TSR · 11th February 2010, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by ToddH

C'mon Budly and Saggy. Just admit you hate the Joos and that you're glad that millions of them were killed during the Holocaust. Do you not have the courage to stand up for what you believe?

.
Well, in the Tiger thread I've already linked to, Saggy tries to generalize from a group of offended Orthodox Jews reportedly spitting on someone who was interrupting their demonstration, to Haaretz reporting that it is a religious mandate for Jews to spit on Christians.

He never got around to explaining why this "religious mandate" was *actually* reported in an undated interview with cites City of Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby saying that they had had only two complaints from Christians in the past two years. He went on to say that in both cases, the culprits were caught and punished.

Readers may draw their own conclusions.
.

Corsair 115 · 11th February 2010, 12:08 PM

Let's ask a couple of questions of Budly and Saggy.

For the sake of argument, let's say your claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are correct. Does that then mean you hold a favourable and positive opinion of the Nazi regime and of Hitler himself? Or do you still consider both Hitler and the Nazi regime despicable and reprehensible?

Yoink · 11th February 2010, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by ToddH

C'mon Budly and Saggy. Just admit you hate the Joos and that you're glad that millions of them were killed during the Holocaust. Do you not have the courage to stand up for what you believe?

I must say that this is the thing that most puzzles me about Holocaust Deniers. They're all utterly obsessed with how evil the Jews are and what a plague to humanity they are and how they're out to destroy the world and so forth. And then they also say "No, Hitler LOVED the Jews! There was no holocaust! He was training the Jews for a better life in Israel!"

Well, why do they think Hitler's such a great guy then? I mean, if Hitler's whole program with respect to the Jews was to settle them in Israel (and provide them with skills and training to make that settlement even more successful) shouldn't they regard Hitler as the worst leader in all of history? He's the person, in their view, who made possible the evil country that--again, in their view--is battening on the world like a vampire today.

Shouldn't they all condemn Hitler as an evil Jew-lover and the greatest friend Israel (their great enemy) ever had? But no, somehow it's all "if only we'd listened to Hitler, there wouldn't be any of these troubles nowadays!" What? Israel would be even stronger? The whole world would have participated in a vast Zionist project? Is that what they mean?

Budly · 11th February 2010, 12:15 PM

Am I a holocaust denier? Yes I am.

But having said that, if the Soviets faked footage at Auschwitz, and if the Americans faked footage at Buchenwald, that doesn't mean the holocaust didn't happen.

It would mean (if you were a believer) that there was ample evidence and the over-zealous covert operations people, didn't need to fake any more evidence. In fact they hurt the credibility of the real evidence by faking evidence.

But we're not even on that level in this thread.

Yoink · 11th February 2010, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Budly

Am I a holocaust denier? Yes I am.

But having said that, if the Soviets faked footage at Auschwitz, and if the Americans faked footage at Buchenwald, that doesn't mean the holocaust didn't happen.

It would mean (if you were a believer) that there was ample evidence and the over-zealous covert operations people, didn't need to fake any more evidence. In fact they hurt the credibility of the real evidence by faking evidence.

But we're not even on that level in this thread.

Indeed not. We're at the level of a simple, bald assertion of fakery, with no proof of any kind offered whatsoever.

Perhaps you should offer some, you know, proof. Then we can decide whether or not this one, relatively minor, piece of the vast mountain of proof demonstrating that the Holocaust did take place is unreliable.

Corsair 115 · 11th February 2010, 12:21 PM

Maybe the Allies faked all the footage of the bombed out German cities to make their war efforts look more destructive than they really were? I mean, as long as we're tossing out allegations of faked films...

realpaladin · 11th February 2010, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Budly

Am I a holocaust denier? Yes I am.

I don't mind that. You are entitled to be.

Originally Posted by Budly

But having said that, if the Soviets faked footage at Auschwitz, and if the Americans faked footage at Buchenwald, that doesn't mean the holocaust didn't happen.

And this thread is about proving that the Soviets faked Auschwitz, and it has not been proven one bit.

Originally Posted by Budly

It would mean (if you were a believer) that there was ample evidence and the over-zealous covert operations people, didn't need to fake any more evidence.

The 'over-zealous' kind of answers it...

But even *if* they were over-zealous and even *if* it was not necessary.
That does not say a single thing about the evidence that the Holocaust *did* happen.

Originally Posted by Budly

In fact they hurt the credibility of the real evidence by faking evidence.

No, not really.

Evidence has to be checked on it's own merit. Piece by piece.

In this forum if someone uses bad or weak evidence/statements to discredit strong evidence/arguments he/she is usually explained what a Strawman Argument is.

As long as you can not disprove *all* evidence, there still is evidence.

Originally Posted by Budly

But we're not even on that level in this thread.

Exactly, there has not been one piece of evidence for the OP claim at all.

*Your* claim Budly.

Budly · 11th February 2010, 12:24 PM

Well first let's hear what Nick Terry and Jonathan Harrison say about the bucket of human heads and the pilloried bodies. They obviously are familiar with this footage in question.

Yoink · 11th February 2010, 12:34 PM

By the way, the whole "bucket of heads" thing is addressed pretty thoroughly here. Turns out that nobody but the Holocaust deniers claim that this is footage of Auschwitz and that it was never claimed to be footage of Auschwitz at the Eichmann trial. So the entire "why would they leave this behind at Auschwitz" line of argument is irrelevant. Yet again its Deniers 0 / Truth 1.

realpaladin · 11th February 2010, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Budly

Well first let's hear what Nick Terry and Jonathan Harrison say about the bucket of human heads and the pilloried bodies. They obviously are familiar with this footage in question.

Then why would *you* claim it and hold it to be true if you do not have the arguments that pulled you over at the ready?

realpaladin · 11th February 2010, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

By the way, the whole "bucket of heads" thing is addressed pretty thoroughly here. Turns out that nobody but the Holocaust deniers claim that this is footage of Auschwitz and that it was never claimed to be footage of Auschwitz at the Eichmann trial. So the entire "why would they leave this behind at Auschwitz" line of argument is irrelevant. Yet again its Deniers 0 / Truth 1.

Thanks. Also shows that Budly and his buddly Saggy have no clue what they are talking about.

Nick Terry · 11th February 2010, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Budly

Well first let's hear what Nick Terry and Jonathan Harrison say about the bucket of human heads and the pilloried bodies. They obviously are familiar with this footage in question.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...heir-lies.html

silly, stupid denier. Debunked nearly three and a half years ago. The footage isn't from Auschwitz.

Saggy · 11th February 2010, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...heir-lies.html

silly, stupid denier. Debunked nearly three and a half years ago. The footage isn't from Auschwitz.

Haha .... from the 'rebuttal' it appears that no one knows where the film came from. But no problem ..... let's check the 'authentication' process ...

Attorney General: With the Court's permission, last night we screened the films - which the Court will now see - in the presence of representatives of the Prosecution, and in the presence of Dr. Servatius and nine identification witnesses. They are: Mrs. Salzberger, Mr. Hoch, Mr. Aviel, Mr. Melkman, Mr. Ben-Zvi, Mr. Bakon, Mrs. Kagan, Mr. Chen and Mr. Aharon Hoter-Yishai. As a result of the screening, Defence Counsel agreed that, indeed, each of the witnesses identified a portion of the pictures, and hence, in this way, the entire screening was authenticated. I understand that Defence Counsel does not insist that the oath be administered to these identifying witnesses, but they are present here, at the Court's disposal, should the Court desire further authentication from them or to put additional questions to them.

Presiding Judge: That means there will be no testimony..

This degenerate trash was used against Eichmann without a word of authentication. How grotesque can the Israeli court be? Answer: there is no limit.

Thunder · 11th February 2010, 01:00 PM

the numbers speak for themselves. there are at least 4.5 million Jews missing from the planet Earth. max numbers are 7 million.

until someone comes up with a reasonable theory as to where these Jews went, I believe the Holocaust is true.

Paulhoff · 11th February 2010, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Budly

Am I a holocaust denier? Yes I am.

Good, I'm a denier that you are human.

I know many non-Jews that where is the army and saw the camps, why don't you talk to them, I'll pick up your pieces later.

Paul

Marduk · 11th February 2010, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Saggy

Haha .... from the 'rebuttal' it appears that no one knows where the film came from. But no problem ..... let's check the 'authentication' process ...

Attorney General: With the Court's permission, last night we screened the films - which the Court will now see - in the presence of representatives of the Prosecution, and in the presence of Dr. Servatius and nine identification witnesses. They are: Mrs. Salzberger, Mr. Hoch, Mr. Aviel, Mr. Melkman, Mr. Ben-Zvi, Mr. Bakon, Mrs. Kagan, Mr. Chen and Mr. Aharon Hoter-Yishai. As a result of the screening, Defence Counsel agreed that, indeed, each of the witnesses identified a portion of the pictures, and hence, in this way, the entire screening was authenticated. I understand that Defence Counsel does not insist that the oath be administered to these identifying witnesses, but they are present here, at the Court's disposal, should the Court desire further authentication from them or to put additional questions to them.

Presiding Judge: That means there will be no testimony..

This degenerate trash was used against Eichmann without a word of authentication. How grotesque can the Israeli court be? Answer: there is no limit.

reading comprehension problem ?

Quote:

Defence Counsel agreed that, indeed, each of the witnesses identified a portion of the pictures, and hence, in this way, the entire screening was authenticated

the defence agreed it was legitimate
are you saying the defence lawyer was in on it ?

also what are you referring to as degenerate ?

Nick Terry · 11th February 2010, 01:09 PM

another silly, stupid denier. Thread title is wrong. Footage isn't from Auschwitz.

Yoink · 11th February 2010, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Saggy

Haha .... from the 'rebuttal' it appears that no one knows where the film came from. But no problem ..... let's check the 'authentication' process ...

Attorney General: With the Court's permission, last night we screened the films - which the Court will now see - in the presence of representatives of the Prosecution, and in the presence of Dr. Servatius and nine identification witnesses. They are: Mrs. Salzberger, Mr. Hoch, Mr. Aviel, Mr. Melkman, Mr. Ben-Zvi, Mr. Bakon, Mrs. Kagan, Mr. Chen and Mr. Aharon Hoter-Yishai. As a result of the screening, Defence Counsel agreed that, indeed, each of the witnesses identified a portion of the pictures, and hence, in this way, the entire screening was authenticated. I understand that Defence Counsel does not insist that the oath be administered to these identifying witnesses, but they are present here, at the Court's disposal, should the Court desire further authentication from them or to put additional questions to them.

Presiding Judge: That means there will be no testimony..

This degenerate trash was used against Eichmann without a word of authentication. How grotesque can the Israeli court be? Answer: there is no limit.

You do realize that when you quote from court transcripts like this it makes it very easy for anybody to Google the complete transcripts, right? And when they Google the complete transcripts it becomes clear that the Judge is voicing a concern as to the lack of testimony about the authenticity of the films, a concern that is immediately answered by the prosecuting attorneys. Furthermore, Eichmann's lawyer is part of this discussion and, amongst other things, he stipulates that all of the footage is genuine. He gets to raise his objections to the applicability of certain parts of the footage.

I mean, why bother lying about something so easily checkable?

And once again we have your virulent hatred of Israel and of Jews in general on display, and have this odd problem of reconciling this with your evidently fervent admiration for Hitler--for the very Hitler who, in your view, was one of the great champions of Israel and a man who too a deep paternalistic interest in the fate of the Jews. Why are you so enamoured of Hitler if you actually believe him to have been one of the chief supporters of a people you also believe to be a scourge of humanity?

TSR · 11th February 2010, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Saggy

Haha .... from the 'rebuttal' it appears that no one knows where the film came from. But no problem ..... let's check the 'authentication' process ...

.
And so (not that it was any surprize,) we add reading for comprehension to Saggy's lacks.

From the cited article:

Quote:

...The artifacts stated to be tattooed samples of human skin were features not of Auschwitz, but of Buchenwald concentration camp, ...As to the decapitated human bodies and the heads lying in a bucket beside them, similarity with some rather graphic photos of corpses lying in containers, which are shown here, suggests that the film image in question is related to the Soviet allegations of experiments in the manufacture of soap from human corpses conducted at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, ...t is also possible, considering similarity with these very graphic images from a French investigation of crimes committed at Struthof/Natzweiler concentration camp in Alsace, that the image in question is related to a singularly macabre endeavor that Eichmann was accused of having been involved in, the making of an “anthropological” skeleton collection suggested to Himmler by SS-Hauptsturmführer Dr. August Hirt, head of the Anatomical Institute at Strasbourg University, for which the bodies of people killed at Natzweiler concentration camp in Alsace were used ...

.
The article then goes on to quote the actual transcript showing how very unlikely it is that this film was presented as if it was actual footage from Auschwitz.

.
[quote=Saggy;5608062]

<snip description of authentication process, carried out in the presence of Defense Counsel and nine witnesses, and stipulated to by him in court>

This degenerate trash was used against Eichmann without a word of authentication.
.
Do you even read and understand what *you* write?
.

Originally Posted by Saggy

How grotesque can the Israel court be? Answer: there is no limit.

.
Yes, how *dare* they afford the defendant the benefit of his choice of counsel, paid for by the State, and every opportunity to object to any evidentiary evidence and crossexamine all witnesses.

And how was that "I'm going to confess to my part in the mass murder off millions, and that's how I'm going to beat this rap" thing supposed to work again?
.

realpaladin · 11th February 2010, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Saggy

Haha .... from the 'rebuttal' it appears that no one knows where the film came from. But no problem ..... let's check the 'authentication' process ...

This makes your claim even worse... you *know* you have no proof but want to pass it off as truth?

Originally Posted by Saggy

Attorney General

<snippety>

This degenerate trash was used against Eichmann without a word of authentication. How grotesque can the Israeli court be? Answer: there is no limit.

And... this proves your OP claims how????

I mean, no problem if you want to deny stuff.

But you seem unable to backup your claim in the OP.

MG1962 · 11th February 2010, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Budly

Eichmann's lawyer must have believed that it wouldn't be good for his client for him to call it "faked footage" so Dr. Servatius puts in a mild protest that *there must be some misunderstanding*:

So in other words you guessing without any evidence. Eichmann was facing the death penalty.....seems odd his lawyer would not throw everything including the kitchen sink at the issue

Staropeace · 11th February 2010, 01:43 PM

Trying to reason with someone who denies the holocaust happened is like trying to hold a conversation with smoke. It moves around and becomes elusive. One cant get a handle on it at all. It just conveniently dissipates when comfronted and leaves a bad smell in the air.

timhau · 11th February 2010, 01:47 PM

It's generally tough to argue with reality-deniers.

MG1962 · 11th February 2010, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Staropeace

Trying to reason with someone who denies the holocaust happened is like trying to hold a conversation with smoke. It moves around and becomes elusive. One cant get a handle on it at all. It just conveniently dissipates when comfronted and leaves a bad smell in the air.

True but this is not about you and I - or those who disbelieve the holocaust. It is the people who read these forums, who for whatever reason choose not to post in them.

If holocaust deniers are constantly challenged in a cold dispassionate way, those reading these forums may just be swayed in their thinking of history.

We owe a challenge to holocaust deniers for the ghosts of all the people who died. Not just Jewish but all the other races and creeds the Nazis decided were of no value. We owe such a challenge to everyone who has been a victim of state sponsored violence.

We owe such a challenge for those who will come after us.

Dwight D Eisenhower picked it all the way back in 1945 when he organised everyone he could to visit the camps his troops had liberated

“I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’”

Budly · 11th February 2010, 02:16 PM

The Israeli Attorney General mentioned Auschwitz. He didn't mention the "Danzig Anatomical Institute" Why would the Danzig Anatomical Institute have a pillory device for holding someone's neck? That's an atrocity propaganda fake.

Notice how Nick Terry and his links would have you believe that the display items at Buchenwald were real? Pretty slick, since tattoos can be real but not taken off prisoners bodies. Even Buchenwald curator Harry Stein doesn't think they shrunk heads for curios at Buchenwald, but Nick Terry clearly does! LOL.

I have the bucket of heads footage somewhere on a DVD, and now I'm going to have to find it, and see what film it's from.

MG1962 wrote:

Quote:

Dwight D Eisenhower picked it all the way back in 1945 when he organised everyone he could to visit the camps his troops had liberated

Except he didn't visit camps where the holocaust allegedly took place. He visited Ohrdruf. If he visited camps where the holocaust allegedly took place then he would have went to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec. You've been duped by the Eisenhower spiel.

Staropeace · 11th February 2010, 02:18 PM

I sometimes wonder if it isnt a question of whether they believe it,though. I sorta think they believe it but are determined to defend the natizs by this denial. I think they hate the Jewish people and the other folks the Natzis singled out....just my thoughts....but I can almost feel the hatred eminating from them and the arrogance.

I could be wrong....it is just a feeling I have is all.

Cleon · 11th February 2010, 02:18 PM

This is worse than the Gish Gallop. At least Gish follows some train of thought, however fast it's running.

realpaladin · 11th February 2010, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Budly

I have the bucket of heads footage somewhere on a DVD, and now I'm going to have to find it, and see what film it's from.

Yes you have to. You claim something and have given no proof.

Yoink · 11th February 2010, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Budly

The Israeli Attorney General mentioned Auschwitz. He didn't mention the "Danzig Anatomical Institute" Why would the Danzig Anatomical Institute have a pillory device for holding someone's neck? That's an atrocity propaganda fake.

A) provide a transcript of the Israeli Attorney General claiming that this particular piece of footage is from Auschwitz.

B) You're guessing as to the purpose of the "pillory device."

Originally Posted by Budly

I have the bucket of heads footage somewhere on a DVD, and now I'm going to have to find it, and see what film it's from.

So you made this OP without even knowing what the provenance of this footage was. Very slick.

Saggy · 11th February 2010, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

So in other words you guessing without any evidence. Eichmann was facing the death penalty.....seems odd his lawyer would not throw everything including the kitchen sink at the issue

It seems that way in the real world, but not in the world of a hoax trial. The prosecution shows a movie from who knows where of a bucket full of severed heads, and the 'defense' doesn't object. No testimony is given to authenticate the movie. Not a single word. What does that tell you? The trial was a hoax. How much proof do you need?

The hoaxers on this board are beyond pathetic ! LOL.

Staropeace · 11th February 2010, 02:55 PM

Lots more than you give,chummy

Marduk · 11th February 2010, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Saggy

How much proof do you need?

you havent as of yet provided any proof at all, apart from proving that Eichmans defense approved the film and that Eichman himself didn't object to it

seems to me that you in your arrogance and inability to grasp simple concepts are constantly shooting yourself in the foot, if you did that while serving in the WW2 german army, guess where you'd end up

Saggy · 11th February 2010, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

you havent as of yet provided any proof at all, apart from proving that Eichmans defense approved the film and that Eichman himself didn't object to it

Marduk, you got that right ! I'm beginning to suspect you are a revisionist !

Marduk · 11th February 2010, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Saggy

Marduk, you got that right ! I'm beginning to suspect you are a revisionist !

no, I'm a reader, I got all that from your posts, would you like me to point out where or can you manage to read what you wrote yourself ?

btw, in your opinion, what is it that makes Jews degenerate ?

realpaladin · 11th February 2010, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Saggy

Marduk, you got that right ! I'm beginning to suspect you are a revisionist !

And it still does nothing for proving the OP....

11th February 2010, 11:32 AM	#81
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,585	Originally Posted by Saggy It was an excellent post, except that it was completely off topic. Great. Does that mean you will answer my ontopic questions?
	__________________ "All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin ---

11th February 2010, 11:34 AM	#82
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 10,183	Originally Posted by Saggy It was an excellent post, except that it was completely off topic. I'll just note briefly that the photos of the children in the camps at the end of the war completely disprove the holocaust lies .... so I was surprised that you posted them. I'll feature them in a future thread. I won't comment on them further in this thread. Or you can start a thread with those pictures, but, I think it will have to be a 'revisionist' thread ! ok so the dead bodies and the shoes were all faked, but the kids looking happy when they were set free from german control were real ? ok but you didn't adress the post at all, just moved the goalposts 1. who faked them and why ? 2. why would the kids be happy that they were set free ? whenever youre ready thanks
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 10,183

11th February 2010, 11:36 AM	#83
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,585	Originally Posted by Budly Well, the Soviets faked evidence at Auschwitz: A bucket of human heads, and next to it a pillory-device where your neck is going though a small cut-out hole in a piece of wood. And where is Nick Terry and Jonathan Harrison to comment on this? Prove it is fake. Originally Posted by Budly The Americans were fakers too: Buchenwald: a table with a supposed human skin lampshade and two shrunken heads. Prove it is fake. Originally Posted by Budly The OSS (wartime CIA) had 16,000 employees, but the Soviet counterpart had 70,000 employees. PWD-SHAEF (Psyche Warfare Department had 1,000+ employees, so this is one way this stuff comes about. Number of employees doth not prove of faking make. Originally Posted by Budly To answer Darat's question: fake in terms of the Soviets put the heads in the bucket, and filmed it with the implication that the Soviets came into the camp and found it like that. So, even if I would accept that, (and where did the heads come from, did they bring them?) does that mean the facts they found are fake? Saggy... in case you missed reading the subtitle of this forum... over here you have to put your money where your mouth is. You have to build up your claim with evidence.
	__________________ "All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin --- Last edited by realpaladin; 11th February 2010 at 11:38 AM. Reason: Enlightening Saggy

11th February 2010, 11:40 AM	#84
ToddH Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 413	C'mon Budly and Saggy. Just admit you hate the Joos and that you're glad that millions of them were killed during the Holocaust. Do you not have the courage to stand up for what you believe?
ToddH Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 413

11th February 2010, 11:51 AM	#85
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I? Posts: 14,462	Originally Posted by TSR . Untrue: The Lachout Document, the Hitler Diaries, the Leuchter Report, all the hype over the Krege Report, that idiot youtube video supposedly showing people survivng for hours in a room exposed to Zyklon B... And all of it trivially and rapidly demonstrated to be suspect at the least, if not outright lies. . But... but... that just can't be. Saggy said he questions everything! If what you said was true, he'd only question everything that makes his beloved Nazis look bad. It just can't be!
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

11th February 2010, 11:52 AM	#86
TSR Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,783	Originally Posted by ToddH C'mon Budly and Saggy. Just admit you hate the Joos and that you're glad that millions of them were killed during the Holocaust. Do you not have the courage to stand up for what you believe? . Well, in the Tiger thread I've already linked to, Saggy tries to generalize from a group of offended Orthodox Jews reportedly spitting on someone who was interrupting their demonstration, to Haaretz reporting that it is a religious mandate for Jews to spit on Christians. He never got around to explaining why this "religious mandate" was actually reported in an undated interview with cites City of Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby saying that they had had only two complaints from Christians in the past two years. He went on to say that in both cases, the culprits were caught and punished. Readers may draw their own conclusions. .
TSR Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,783

11th February 2010, 12:08 PM	#87
Corsair 115 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 14,519	Let's ask a couple of questions of Budly and Saggy. For the sake of argument, let's say your claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are correct. Does that then mean you hold a favourable and positive opinion of the Nazi regime and of Hitler himself? Or do you still consider both Hitler and the Nazi regime despicable and reprehensible?
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

11th February 2010, 12:12 PM	#88
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,936	Originally Posted by ToddH C'mon Budly and Saggy. Just admit you hate the Joos and that you're glad that millions of them were killed during the Holocaust. Do you not have the courage to stand up for what you believe? I must say that this is the thing that most puzzles me about Holocaust Deniers. They're all utterly obsessed with how evil the Jews are and what a plague to humanity they are and how they're out to destroy the world and so forth. And then they also say "No, Hitler LOVED the Jews! There was no holocaust! He was training the Jews for a better life in Israel!" Well, why do they think Hitler's such a great guy then? I mean, if Hitler's whole program with respect to the Jews was to settle them in Israel (and provide them with skills and training to make that settlement even more successful) shouldn't they regard Hitler as the worst leader in all of history? He's the person, in their view, who made possible the evil country that--again, in their view--is battening on the world like a vampire today. Shouldn't they all condemn Hitler as an evil Jew-lover and the greatest friend Israel (their great enemy) ever had? But no, somehow it's all "if only we'd listened to Hitler, there wouldn't be any of these troubles nowadays!" What? Israel would be even stronger? The whole world would have participated in a vast Zionist project? Is that what they mean?
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,936

11th February 2010, 12:15 PM	#89
Budly Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 148	Am I a holocaust denier? Yes I am. But having said that, if the Soviets faked footage at Auschwitz, and if the Americans faked footage at Buchenwald, that doesn't mean the holocaust didn't happen. It would mean (if you were a believer) that there was ample evidence and the over-zealous covert operations people, didn't need to fake any more evidence. In fact they hurt the credibility of the real evidence by faking evidence. But we're not even on that level in this thread.
Budly Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 148	Last edited by Budly; 11th February 2010 at 12:16 PM.

11th February 2010, 12:18 PM	#90
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,936	Originally Posted by Budly Am I a holocaust denier? Yes I am. But having said that, if the Soviets faked footage at Auschwitz, and if the Americans faked footage at Buchenwald, that doesn't mean the holocaust didn't happen. It would mean (if you were a believer) that there was ample evidence and the over-zealous covert operations people, didn't need to fake any more evidence. In fact they hurt the credibility of the real evidence by faking evidence. But we're not even on that level in this thread. Indeed not. We're at the level of a simple, bald assertion of fakery, with no proof of any kind offered whatsoever. Perhaps you should offer some, you know, proof. Then we can decide whether or not this one, relatively minor, piece of the vast mountain of proof demonstrating that the Holocaust did take place is unreliable.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,936

11th February 2010, 12:21 PM	#91
Corsair 115 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 14,519	Maybe the Allies faked all the footage of the bombed out German cities to make their war efforts look more destructive than they really were? I mean, as long as we're tossing out allegations of faked films...
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

11th February 2010, 12:23 PM	#92
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,585	Originally Posted by Budly Am I a holocaust denier? Yes I am. I don't mind that. You are entitled to be. Originally Posted by Budly But having said that, if the Soviets faked footage at Auschwitz, and if the Americans faked footage at Buchenwald, that doesn't mean the holocaust didn't happen. And this thread is about proving that the Soviets faked Auschwitz, and it has not been proven one bit. Originally Posted by Budly It would mean (if you were a believer) that there was ample evidence and the over-zealous covert operations people, didn't need to fake any more evidence. The 'over-zealous' kind of answers it... But even if they were over-zealous and even if it was not necessary. That does not say a single thing about the evidence that the Holocaust did happen. Originally Posted by Budly In fact they hurt the credibility of the real evidence by faking evidence. No, not really. Evidence has to be checked on it's own merit. Piece by piece. In this forum if someone uses bad or weak evidence/statements to discredit strong evidence/arguments he/she is usually explained what a Strawman Argument is. As long as you can not disprove all evidence, there still is evidence. Originally Posted by Budly But we're not even on that level in this thread. Exactly, there has not been one piece of evidence for the OP claim at all. Your claim Budly.
	__________________ "All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin --- Last edited by realpaladin; 11th February 2010 at 12:24 PM.

11th February 2010, 12:24 PM	#93
Budly Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 148	Well first let's hear what Nick Terry and Jonathan Harrison say about the bucket of human heads and the pilloried bodies. They obviously are familiar with this footage in question.
Budly Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 148	Last edited by Budly; 11th February 2010 at 12:26 PM.

11th February 2010, 12:34 PM	#94
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,936	By the way, the whole "bucket of heads" thing is addressed pretty thoroughly here. Turns out that nobody but the Holocaust deniers claim that this is footage of Auschwitz and that it was never claimed to be footage of Auschwitz at the Eichmann trial. So the entire "why would they leave this behind at Auschwitz" line of argument is irrelevant. Yet again its Deniers 0 / Truth 1.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,936

11th February 2010, 12:37 PM	#95
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,585	Originally Posted by Budly Well first let's hear what Nick Terry and Jonathan Harrison say about the bucket of human heads and the pilloried bodies. They obviously are familiar with this footage in question. Then why would you claim it and hold it to be true if you do not have the arguments that pulled you over at the ready?
	__________________ "All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin ---

11th February 2010, 12:38 PM	#96
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,585	Originally Posted by Yoink By the way, the whole "bucket of heads" thing is addressed pretty thoroughly here. Turns out that nobody but the Holocaust deniers claim that this is footage of Auschwitz and that it was never claimed to be footage of Auschwitz at the Eichmann trial. So the entire "why would they leave this behind at Auschwitz" line of argument is irrelevant. Yet again its Deniers 0 / Truth 1. Thanks. Also shows that Budly and his buddly Saggy have no clue what they are talking about.
	__________________ "All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin ---

11th February 2010, 12:42 PM	#97
Nick Terry Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,958	Originally Posted by Budly Well first let's hear what Nick Terry and Jonathan Harrison say about the bucket of human heads and the pilloried bodies. They obviously are familiar with this footage in question. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...heir-lies.html silly, stupid denier. Debunked nearly three and a half years ago. The footage isn't from Auschwitz.

11th February 2010, 12:58 PM	#98
Saggy Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,804	Originally Posted by Nick Terry http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...heir-lies.html silly, stupid denier. Debunked nearly three and a half years ago. The footage isn't from Auschwitz. Haha .... from the 'rebuttal' it appears that no one knows where the film came from. But no problem ..... let's check the 'authentication' process ... Attorney General: With the Court's permission, last night we screened the films - which the Court will now see - in the presence of representatives of the Prosecution, and in the presence of Dr. Servatius and nine identification witnesses. They are: Mrs. Salzberger, Mr. Hoch, Mr. Aviel, Mr. Melkman, Mr. Ben-Zvi, Mr. Bakon, Mrs. Kagan, Mr. Chen and Mr. Aharon Hoter-Yishai. As a result of the screening, Defence Counsel agreed that, indeed, each of the witnesses identified a portion of the pictures, and hence, in this way, the entire screening was authenticated. I understand that Defence Counsel does not insist that the oath be administered to these identifying witnesses, but they are present here, at the Court's disposal, should the Court desire further authentication from them or to put additional questions to them. Presiding Judge: That means there will be no testimony.. This degenerate trash was used against Eichmann without a word of authentication. How grotesque can the Israeli court be? Answer: there is no limit.
Saggy Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,804	Last edited by Saggy; 11th February 2010 at 01:01 PM.

11th February 2010, 01:00 PM	#99
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	the numbers speak for themselves. there are at least 4.5 million Jews missing from the planet Earth. max numbers are 7 million. until someone comes up with a reasonable theory as to where these Jews went, I believe the Holocaust is true.
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918

11th February 2010, 01:06 PM	#100
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,512	Originally Posted by Budly Am I a holocaust denier? Yes I am. Good, I'm a denier that you are human. I know many non-Jews that where is the army and saw the camps, why don't you talk to them, I'll pick up your pieces later. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

11th February 2010, 01:08 PM	#101
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 10,183	Originally Posted by Saggy Haha .... from the 'rebuttal' it appears that no one knows where the film came from. But no problem ..... let's check the 'authentication' process ... Attorney General: With the Court's permission, last night we screened the films - which the Court will now see - in the presence of representatives of the Prosecution, and in the presence of Dr. Servatius and nine identification witnesses. They are: Mrs. Salzberger, Mr. Hoch, Mr. Aviel, Mr. Melkman, Mr. Ben-Zvi, Mr. Bakon, Mrs. Kagan, Mr. Chen and Mr. Aharon Hoter-Yishai. As a result of the screening, Defence Counsel agreed that, indeed, each of the witnesses identified a portion of the pictures, and hence, in this way, the entire screening was authenticated. I understand that Defence Counsel does not insist that the oath be administered to these identifying witnesses, but they are present here, at the Court's disposal, should the Court desire further authentication from them or to put additional questions to them. Presiding Judge: That means there will be no testimony.. This degenerate trash was used against Eichmann without a word of authentication. How grotesque can the Israeli court be? Answer: there is no limit. reading comprehension problem ? Quote: Defence Counsel agreed that, indeed, each of the witnesses identified a portion of the pictures, and hence, in this way, the entire screening was authenticated the defence agreed it was legitimate are you saying the defence lawyer was in on it ? also what are you referring to as degenerate ?
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 10,183

11th February 2010, 01:09 PM	#102
Nick Terry Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,958	another silly, stupid denier. Thread title is wrong. Footage isn't from Auschwitz.

11th February 2010, 01:09 PM	#103
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,936	Originally Posted by Saggy Haha .... from the 'rebuttal' it appears that no one knows where the film came from. But no problem ..... let's check the 'authentication' process ... Attorney General: With the Court's permission, last night we screened the films - which the Court will now see - in the presence of representatives of the Prosecution, and in the presence of Dr. Servatius and nine identification witnesses. They are: Mrs. Salzberger, Mr. Hoch, Mr. Aviel, Mr. Melkman, Mr. Ben-Zvi, Mr. Bakon, Mrs. Kagan, Mr. Chen and Mr. Aharon Hoter-Yishai. As a result of the screening, Defence Counsel agreed that, indeed, each of the witnesses identified a portion of the pictures, and hence, in this way, the entire screening was authenticated. I understand that Defence Counsel does not insist that the oath be administered to these identifying witnesses, but they are present here, at the Court's disposal, should the Court desire further authentication from them or to put additional questions to them. Presiding Judge: That means there will be no testimony.. This degenerate trash was used against Eichmann without a word of authentication. How grotesque can the Israeli court be? Answer: there is no limit. You do realize that when you quote from court transcripts like this it makes it very easy for anybody to Google the complete transcripts, right? And when they Google the complete transcripts it becomes clear that the Judge is voicing a concern as to the lack of testimony about the authenticity of the films, a concern that is immediately answered by the prosecuting attorneys. Furthermore, Eichmann's lawyer is part of this discussion and, amongst other things, he stipulates that all of the footage is genuine. He gets to raise his objections to the applicability of certain parts of the footage. I mean, why bother lying about something so easily checkable? And once again we have your virulent hatred of Israel and of Jews in general on display, and have this odd problem of reconciling this with your evidently fervent admiration for Hitler--for the very Hitler who, in your view, was one of the great champions of Israel and a man who too a deep paternalistic interest in the fate of the Jews. Why are you so enamoured of Hitler if you actually believe him to have been one of the chief supporters of a people you also believe to be a scourge of humanity?
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,936

11th February 2010, 01:17 PM	#104
TSR Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,783	Originally Posted by Saggy Haha .... from the 'rebuttal' it appears that no one knows where the film came from. But no problem ..... let's check the 'authentication' process ... . And so (not that it was any surprize,) we add reading for comprehension to Saggy's lacks. From the cited article: Quote: ...The artifacts stated to be tattooed samples of human skin were features not of Auschwitz, but of Buchenwald concentration camp, ...As to the decapitated human bodies and the heads lying in a bucket beside them, similarity with some rather graphic photos of corpses lying in containers, which are shown here, suggests that the film image in question is related to the Soviet allegations of experiments in the manufacture of soap from human corpses conducted at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, ...t is also possible, considering similarity with these very graphic images from a French investigation of crimes committed at Struthof/Natzweiler concentration camp in Alsace, that the image in question is related to a singularly macabre endeavor that Eichmann was accused of having been involved in, the making of an “anthropological” skeleton collection suggested to Himmler by SS-Hauptsturmführer Dr. August Hirt, head of the Anatomical Institute at Strasbourg University, for which the bodies of people killed at Natzweiler concentration camp in Alsace were used ... . The article then goes on to quote the actual transcript showing how very unlikely it is that this film was presented as if it was actual footage from Auschwitz. . [quote=Saggy;5608062] <snip description of authentication process, carried out in the presence of Defense Counsel and nine witnesses, and stipulated to by him in court> This degenerate trash was used against Eichmann without a word of authentication. . Do you even read and understand what you write? . Originally Posted by Saggy How grotesque can the Israel court be? Answer: there is no limit. . Yes, how dare they afford the defendant the benefit of his choice of counsel, paid for by the State, and every opportunity to object to any evidentiary evidence and crossexamine all witnesses. And how was that "I'm going to confess to my part in the mass murder off millions, and that's how I'm going to beat this rap" thing supposed to work again? .
TSR Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,783

11th February 2010, 01:29 PM	#105
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,585	Originally Posted by Saggy Haha .... from the 'rebuttal' it appears that no one knows where the film came from. But no problem ..... let's check the 'authentication' process ... This makes your claim even worse... you know you have no proof but want to pass it off as truth? Originally Posted by Saggy Attorney General <snippety> This degenerate trash was used against Eichmann without a word of authentication. How grotesque can the Israeli court be? Answer: there is no limit. And... this proves your OP claims how???? I mean, no problem if you want to deny stuff. But you seem unable to backup your claim in the OP.
	__________________ "All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin ---

11th February 2010, 01:31 PM	#106
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,252	Originally Posted by Budly Eichmann's lawyer must have believed that it wouldn't be good for his client for him to call it "faked footage" so Dr. Servatius puts in a mild protest that there must be some misunderstanding: So in other words you guessing without any evidence. Eichmann was facing the death penalty.....seems odd his lawyer would not throw everything including the kitchen sink at the issue
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,252

11th February 2010, 01:43 PM	#107
Staropeace Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 316	Trying to reason with someone who denies the holocaust happened is like trying to hold a conversation with smoke. It moves around and becomes elusive. One cant get a handle on it at all. It just conveniently dissipates when comfronted and leaves a bad smell in the air.
	Last edited by Staropeace; 11th February 2010 at 01:50 PM.

11th February 2010, 01:47 PM	#108
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I? Posts: 14,462	It's generally tough to argue with reality-deniers.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

11th February 2010, 02:07 PM	#109
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,252	Originally Posted by Staropeace Trying to reason with someone who denies the holocaust happened is like trying to hold a conversation with smoke. It moves around and becomes elusive. One cant get a handle on it at all. It just conveniently dissipates when comfronted and leaves a bad smell in the air. True but this is not about you and I - or those who disbelieve the holocaust. It is the people who read these forums, who for whatever reason choose not to post in them. If holocaust deniers are constantly challenged in a cold dispassionate way, those reading these forums may just be swayed in their thinking of history. We owe a challenge to holocaust deniers for the ghosts of all the people who died. Not just Jewish but all the other races and creeds the Nazis decided were of no value. We owe such a challenge to everyone who has been a victim of state sponsored violence. We owe such a challenge for those who will come after us. Dwight D Eisenhower picked it all the way back in 1945 when he organised everyone he could to visit the camps his troops had liberated “I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’”
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,252

11th February 2010, 02:16 PM	#110
Budly Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 148	The Israeli Attorney General mentioned Auschwitz. He didn't mention the "Danzig Anatomical Institute" Why would the Danzig Anatomical Institute have a pillory device for holding someone's neck? That's an atrocity propaganda fake. Notice how Nick Terry and his links would have you believe that the display items at Buchenwald were real? Pretty slick, since tattoos can be real but not taken off prisoners bodies. Even Buchenwald curator Harry Stein doesn't think they shrunk heads for curios at Buchenwald, but Nick Terry clearly does! LOL. I have the bucket of heads footage somewhere on a DVD, and now I'm going to have to find it, and see what film it's from. MG1962 wrote: Quote: Dwight D Eisenhower picked it all the way back in 1945 when he organised everyone he could to visit the camps his troops had liberated Except he didn't visit camps where the holocaust allegedly took place. He visited Ohrdruf. If he visited camps where the holocaust allegedly took place then he would have went to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec. You've been duped by the Eisenhower spiel.
Budly Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 148	Last edited by Budly; 11th February 2010 at 02:21 PM.

11th February 2010, 02:18 PM	#111
Staropeace Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 316	I sometimes wonder if it isnt a question of whether they believe it,though. I sorta think they believe it but are determined to defend the natizs by this denial. I think they hate the Jewish people and the other folks the Natzis singled out....just my thoughts....but I can almost feel the hatred eminating from them and the arrogance. I could be wrong....it is just a feeling I have is all.

11th February 2010, 02:18 PM	#112
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 25,682	This is worse than the Gish Gallop. At least Gish follows some train of thought, however fast it's running.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

11th February 2010, 02:20 PM	#113
realpaladin Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,585	Originally Posted by Budly I have the bucket of heads footage somewhere on a DVD, and now I'm going to have to find it, and see what film it's from. Yes you have to. You claim something and have given no proof.
	__________________ "All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin ---

11th February 2010, 02:34 PM	#114
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,936	Originally Posted by Budly The Israeli Attorney General mentioned Auschwitz. He didn't mention the "Danzig Anatomical Institute" Why would the Danzig Anatomical Institute have a pillory device for holding someone's neck? That's an atrocity propaganda fake. A) provide a transcript of the Israeli Attorney General claiming that this particular piece of footage is from Auschwitz. B) You're guessing as to the purpose of the "pillory device." Originally Posted by Budly I have the bucket of heads footage somewhere on a DVD, and now I'm going to have to find it, and see what film it's from. So you made this OP without even knowing what the provenance of this footage was. Very slick.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,936

11th February 2010, 02:52 PM	#115
Saggy Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,804	Originally Posted by MG1962 So in other words you guessing without any evidence. Eichmann was facing the death penalty.....seems odd his lawyer would not throw everything including the kitchen sink at the issue It seems that way in the real world, but not in the world of a hoax trial. The prosecution shows a movie from who knows where of a bucket full of severed heads, and the 'defense' doesn't object. No testimony is given to authenticate the movie. Not a single word. What does that tell you? The trial was a hoax. How much proof do you need? The hoaxers on this board are beyond pathetic ! LOL.
Saggy Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,804	Last edited by Saggy; 11th February 2010 at 02:54 PM.