General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matthew Ellard

Illuminator
M
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
4,094
This is a continuation from here due to the length of the previous thread. As always, all Holocaust-related discussion should be confined to this thread. Thank you.
Posted By: LashL


Mondial said:
The Smithsonian claim that they found "gas chamber" tiles is false - http://newobserveronline.com/smiths...of-david-tiles-shown-to-be-not-jewish-at-all/
Click to expand...
Mondail? This article is about the misidentification of the tiles, on screen, in the documentary by one person, Ivar Schute. You are already very aware the tiles were correctly identified prior to this on the Staffordshire University's "preliminary report". Why did you say this proves the old gas chamber isn't the old gas chamber?


Mondial said:
The above compliments the Eric Hunt documentary on Treblinka - www.gaschamberhoax.com
Click to expand...
Modail? Can you walk us through and specify exactly where in Eric Hunt's propaganda film he calculates 10,000 people transited through Treblinka II. You have been reading Eric's interesting posts on CODOH? No?

Eric Hunt on CODOH said:
"(My) documentary shows proof that approximately 10,000 Jews were transited"
Click to expand...
Eric Hunt on CODOH said:
"One of the reasons I didn't just add up the numbers on screen which add up to approximately 10,000...".
Click to expand...

Where do you think Eric got his "10,000" figure from? Why can't he explain this to the other holocaust deniers who are now questioning his "adding up"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd like to add a question..

Even if the transit of 10,000 people is accurate, how does it alter the accepted Treblinka II facts?

After all, it's well documented (see this thread....) that more than 750,000 people arrived at the camp....
 
Mondial said:
Michael Shermer has tried to have David Cole's new book on his experiences as a holocaust revisionist banned because it shows him in an unflattering light - www.countercontempt.com/archives/5232
Click to expand...
No Mondail. Please read the previous posts in this thread before posting. We have already dealt with David Cole's lies. David Cole lies and misquotes Michael Shermer. Here is just one clear example already mentioned.

In 1993 Michael Shermer's recorded quote said " I think the gas chamber story, in terms of physical evidence is the weakest link." David Cole lied and claimed "Michael Shermer thinks the gas chambers are the weakest link in the whole story" in 2014.

Do you agree David Cole is misquoting Dr Shermer? Yes or No?
 
Mondial said:
The documentary that David Cole made back in 1992 - http://codoh.com/library/document/1001/
Click to expand...

Mondail? You are posting links to David Cole as evidence that the holocaust didn't happen. Are you aware that David Cole has just released a book called "Republican Party Animal"? In his current book David Cole states:

Treblinka Gas Chambers
"They were simple creations---rooms with the exhaust of a car or truck piped in...The gas chambers were simply rooms with no windows, a locked door, and car exhaust piped in. Big outdoor pits, not crematoriums, were used for burning bodies"

AR Camps
"From 1942 through 1943, Polish Jewry was subjected to one of the most brutal campaigns of mass murder in human history. Because of the secrecy surrounding those four extermination camps, and the fact that they were ploughed under and erased from existence in 1943, it's difficult to be precise about certain details. ............. more than enough circumstantial evidence exists to show that for most Jews, the train ride to those camps was one-way, and final."

As a holocaust denier, do you agree with David Cole? If not, why do you keep linking to him if you think he is wrong?
:)

Just for the record, have you actually watched Eric Hunt's propaganda film? I'm becoming suspicious that no holocaust denier has actually watched Eric Hunt's film, read David Cole's books or worked out where Poland is.. It appears to me that holocaust deniers are simply posting links here because they "know the links", not the content. Would that be a correct assumption?
:)
 
EtienneSC said:
The revisionist hits just keep on coming. Here is David Cole & Bradley Smith's 2007 film on the Great Taboo -
Click to expand...

EtienneSC? You say the "hits keep coming" in 2014 by linking us to a video from six years ago by David Cole. Did you actually watch this video yourself before linking it here? David Cole states he believes in the holocaust in this video.

Can you explain in detail why you linked this video? What was your point?
:)
 
The point of the video is very easy to recognize: as long as one side of a discussion is undergoing massive persecution, is it ethical to discuss the topic at all?
 
MaxMurx said:
The point of the video is very easy to recognize: as long as one side of a discussion is undergoing massive persecution, is it ethical to discuss the topic at all?
Click to expand...

Which video?

The David Stein video where David Stein misquotes Dr Shermer, or the American propaganda video in English, by Hunt & Berg, for Americans where no anti-holocaust denial laws exist?

Have you actually watched any of these videos and noted down the "facts" presented and then checked them? Let's do one together!
:)
 
MaxMurx said:
The point of the video is very easy to recognize: as long as one side of a discussion is undergoing massive persecution, is it ethical to discuss the topic at all?
Click to expand...

You're right. It's not ethical. Let's just leave it as it is. The holocaust happened, end of story.
 
uke2se said:
You're right. It's not ethical. Let's just leave it as it is. The holocaust happened, end of story.
Click to expand...

The Holocaust is a historical event. It's not ethical to research it, write about it, publish books, give lectures, etc? What is unethical about studying the Holocaust?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
The Holocaust is a historical event. It's not ethical to research it, write about it, publish books, give lectures, etc? What is unethical about studying the Holocaust?
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct. There is nothing wrong in studying the holocaust and questioning accepted facts about the holocaust using the historical method, peer review and public debate. The same applies to any part of history. That's why we have historians.
:)

However, it would be hard to argue that Holocaust deniers are doing any of the above. No one is stopping Bradley Smith, Eric Hunt or Berg from enrolling in a USA university, forming their views based on facts and writing a fully cited thesis for peer review. Instead we get fake testimonies, outright lies and stolen edited video footage with entire sections removed.

The biggest argument now from holocaust deniers appears to be that poor Dr Colls from Staffordshire university "looks Jewish" and therefore is part of the "Jewish conspiracy". Not one of them will explain how this secret Jewish conspiracy works in any detail.

Eric Hunt & Fred Berg's new webpage
"According to Caroline Sturdy Colls’ actions, only well-funded (by Zionists) historical dictators like herself, who make propaganda presentations regurgitating Soviet Union derived psychological warfare on television stations owned by Jewish Zionist billionaire Murray Rothstein are allowed to have a say in determining real history."

John DeNugent / His webpage
"As for Caroline Sturdy Colls, I am chagrined how many people have missed the obvious Jewish physical characteristics of this incredibly partial “scientist.” I will endeavor below to lay out the indicators suggesting strongly, though not proving, that she is Jewish, and should so state rather than pretend to be impartial. She has every neanderthalic and thus Eastern Mediteranean feature: –dark hair (reddened by coloring), –curved nose, –protruding mouth, –thrust-forward head. Here is a semi-frontal shot of her (and note the IMO stereotypically ARROGANT Jewish look."

The holocaust denier cult was one of the strangest cults ever. It is pure entertainment reading the last blogs of the last few remaining members.
 
The point is that the video shows Ernst Zündel and other deniers being rigorously persecuted. Pro Holocausters do not speak up against that unusual practice, which means: they support it. In this case a discussion is not a discussion, science is not science. Thesis without anti thesis cannot lead to sythesis, is unscientific, if not unethical. Everybody being involved in such a pseudo discussion behaves this unethical way - deniers as well as all others. First persecution has to be removed everywhere. Then discussions can be called discussions.
 
"Ethics" does not mean "something being convenient for you" (although that is not excluded).
 
what a weird idea pro-holocausters..........

The deniers from what I have seen over the years have had their "beliefs" for that is what they are thoroughly shown to be wanting, due to lack of any academic rigour or real hard evidence to back any of their "beliefs", as opposed to the mountain of hard evidence and academic rigour deployed by actual real historians.
 
MaxMurx said:
The point is that the video shows Ernst Zündel and other deniers being rigorously persecuted.
Click to expand...

Which video Max?

Bradley Smith and Fred Berg happily print their home addresses on their webpages, so other deniers can send them donations. ( Not sure what for). Graf fled a Swiss assault charge and worked happily for Iran spreading anti USA propaganda. Jerzy Rek is in gaol for 815 illegal weapons charges. Eric Hunt spend two years in psychiatric care to avoid gaol on a kidnapping charge. Irving got his day in court and lost. David Stein is using holocaust deniers to promote his book where he confirms there was a holocaust. Richard Toben was bankrupted for slander under civil law.

Ernst Zundel is simply a "bit nutty" and publishes books claiming there are secret Nazi Arctic bases, Nazi UFOs and no holocaust. Nutty people do stupid things and get arrested.

"Secret Nazi Polar Expeditions" [1978] Ernst Zundel
"Hitler at the South Pole" [1979] Ernst Zundel
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/flying-saucers/whats-new.html


MaxMurx said:
Pro Holocausters do not speak up against that unusual practice, which means: they support it.
Click to expand...
You mean conventional historians vote for parties that reflect their opinion and thus most countries don't have specific holocaust denial laws. Has it occurred to you that Germans may not want to have German neo Nazis promoting holocaust denial for historical reasons?
:)


MaxMurx said:
In this case a discussion is not a discussion
Click to expand...
That's right, the holocaust deniers now rely on YouTube video propaganda that doesn't allow for any discussion at all. Have you watched Eric Hunt's propaganda videos? Are you aware of the errors and direct lies in those propaganda videos? Tell me, as you are a "revisionist" what mechanism exists to peer review and remove those errors from Eric's propaganda videos? What? No such mechanism exists?

Are you telling me that "revisionists" don't actually revise historical errors made by other "revisionists"? (Don't you think "revisionists" are rather hilarious and a huge joke?)
:)
 
Dcdrac said:
what a weird idea pro-holocausters..........
Click to expand...

The names holocaust deniers give to conventional historians get weirder and weirder. My favourite is "Exterminationists" which implies that conventional historians somehow knocked off the victims themselves.

My favourite entertaining holocaust denier at the moment is John Denugent. He doesn't attempt to justify his beliefs and basically regurgitates anti-Jewish propaganda from the 30's The Sturmer propaganda magazine. He's got some ongoing gripe with the clowns at CODOH, that would take a team of psychiatrists to explain.
:)
 
How can you expect any "academic discussion" if one side at every sentence, every word which is written or said, has to evalute if that is threatened with severe legal or social consequences. That can never lead to any discussion. Even academics with sincere background like here must abstain from asking any questions in order not to provoke their contra parts into illegal activities. Therefore ANY discussion, even any commemoration is unethical as long as it is a legal offense in 20 countries of the Western World to say ones true opinion.
 
MaxMurx said:
How can you expect any "academic discussion" if one side at every sentence, every word which is written or said, has to evalute if that is threatened with severe legal or social consequences.
Click to expand...
But that's not true is it? Before an academic "goes public", a paper goes through the peer review process in private. Do you have any examples of someone being charged under Sec130 "Public incitement" whilst undergoing peer review at a normal university in Germany?

List all those people for us.
:)
 
The video I was talking about is the one which was linked in the quotation of a reply by Matthew Ellard in posting #6 by clicking on "Here".
 
Matthew Ellard said:
But that's not true is it? Before an academic "goes public", a paper goes through the peer review process in private. Do you have any examples of someone being charged under Sec130 "Public incitement" whilst undergoing peer review at a normal university in Germany?

List all those people for us.
:)
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be "public incitement" if an academic paper was being passed among professors in private. So the law wouldn't apply in the early stages of peer review.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
But that's not true is it? Before an academic "goes public", a paper goes through the peer review process in private. Do you have any examples of someone being charged under Sec130 "Public incitement" whilst undergoing peer review at a normal university in Germany?
Click to expand...
CaptainHowdy said:
It wouldn't be "public incitement" if an academic paper was being passed among professors in private. So the law wouldn't apply in the early stages of peer review.
Click to expand...
So therefore there is no problem. Max is under no legal risk, in enrolling at a German university and lodging his alternative thesis for peer review.

Edited by Gaspode: 
Edited for moderated thread.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rincewind said:
I wonder, given the volume of evidence available, if any denier academic papers would progress through peer review at all - even if in private.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer an academic to offer us an overview, but I think that's the whole point. The objective evidence is overwhelming. That is why holocaust deniers prefer to use "one way" propaganda media, such as You tube, as they can ignore facts that don't match their propaganda and can't get criticised, on the spot, for doing just that.

In the Eric Hunt propaganda video, on Treblinka, he directly states there has never been a forensic investigation at Treblinka, yet he happily talks about the 1945 Polish investigation on forums.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
I'd prefer an academic to offer us an overview, but I think that's the whole point. The objective evidence is overwhelming. That is why holocaust deniers prefer to use "one way" propaganda media, such as You tube, as they can ignore facts that don't match their propaganda and can't get criticised, on the spot, for doing just that.

In the Eric Hunt propaganda video, on Treblinka, he directly states there has never been a forensic investigation at Treblinka, yet he happily talks about the 1945 Polish investigation on forums.
Click to expand...

I have noticed that the deniers often fixate on the trivial - as if that's going to make a difference...
 
Rincewind said:
I have noticed that the deniers often fixate on the trivial - as if that's going to make a difference...
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. "Nit picking" is a good description.

I imagine that holocaust deniers avoid "over all" views because it makes their own claims ridiculous. For example, I can never get a holocaust denier to explain what the Secret Jewish conspiracy is?

If the first eyewitness reports concerning mass executions start appearing in 1942 in Poland by escapees, then how does Adolph Eichmann claim the same events happened in an Israeli court in 1960? There are around a hundred eyewitness reports from both Jewish slave workers, Poles, Ukrainians and Germans saying the same thing over decades.

Who exactly do Holocaust denier claim is coordinating the instructions telling these eyewitnesses what to say if they are all fake (according to holocaust deniers)? Why would German SS officers follow instructions from a secret Jewish organisation? If the British army supposedly beat up Hoess to make him confess, then is not the British army part of this secret Jewish conspiracy, as they had to share the same eyewitness information?

The whole holocaust denial movement is just silly. Now that Treblinka is being excavated, I imagine the few remaining deniers will become even weirder in their claims.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
Yes, I agree. "Nit picking" is a good description.

I imagine that holocaust deniers avoid "over all" views because it makes their own claims ridiculous. For example, I can never get a holocaust denier to explain what the Secret Jewish conspiracy is?

If the first eyewitness reports concerning mass executions start appearing in 1942 in Poland by escapees, then how does Adolph Eichmann claim the same events happened in an Israeli court in 1960? There are around a hundred eyewitness reports from both Jewish slave workers, Poles, Ukrainians and Germans saying the same thing over decades.

Who exactly do Holocaust denier claim is coordinating the instructions telling these eyewitnesses what to say if they are all fake (according to holocaust deniers)? Why would German SS officers follow instructions from a secret Jewish organisation? If the British army supposedly beat up Hoess to make him confess, then is not the British army part of this secret Jewish conspiracy, as they had to share the same eyewitness information?

The whole holocaust denial movement is just silly. Now that Treblinka is being excavated, I imagine the few remaining deniers will become even weirder in their claims.
Click to expand...

I predict there will be so much hand waving of the Treblinka study that you could probably generate power for a small town , like some giant human freakin' wind farm.

My uncle visited Sobibor a few years ago, not sure about now but you could find bits of bone all over the place. A denier "explained" this to me, saying "they" scatter bones on the site to make it seem authentic. You just can't win with this kind of lunacy.
 
Moved from here. Please keep to the general discussion thread.
Posted By: LashL


For some reason I thought that checking this forum would finally resolve my doubts as to whether Elie Wiesel has a tattoo.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for moderated thread.


The best argument this forum can give is that the "tattoo faded away" when he has clearly stated that he looks at it every day and has shown it to people even recently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
afree87 said:
For some reason I thought that checking this forum would finally resolve my doubts as to whether Elie Wiesel has a tattoo.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for moderated thread.


The best argument this forum can give is that the "tattoo faded away" when he has clearly stated that he looks at it every day and has shown it to people even recently.
Click to expand...

That's a remarkable reading.

I just read the thread through when you resurrected it, and what I grasped was rather different; to wit, that the tattoo -- done, mind you, without the vivid colors or long-lasting inks of modern work -- might not be visible in a small blurry photograph.

This is Apollo Hoax level here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the guy might not want a photo taken with the resolution required to see a faded old tattoo?

And assuming this one guy was fraud, how does that overturn the people with known and proven tattoos? Just out of interest?
 
Dogzilla said:
For people like lionking, TSR, and uke2se, whether or not what Elie Wiesel says is true doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not what Elie Wiesel says about the holocaust sounds bad.

What Elie says sounds bad so it doesn't matter if it's true. Remember, some things are true that never happened.
Click to expand...

So, is there a context in which the holocaust, even as a concept or notion, was not something that sounds bad? How else does it sound?
 
Tomtomkent said:
So the guy might not want a photo taken with the resolution required to see a faded old tattoo?
Click to expand...
Sounds plausible. I don't know why he wouldn't just say so, and instead claims "modesty". Then again, from his other public statements it's clear that he is a weird person and not representative of Holocaust survivors.

Tomtomkent said:
And assuming this one guy was fraud, how does that overturn the people with known and proven tattoos? Just out of interest?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. I am not a Holocaust denier, I am just suspicious of Wiesel in particular -- he has only admitted very begrudgingly that his book is fictional and I don't know where else in his life story he has deviated from the facts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ERic Hunt's video on the TII investigations is riddled with logical fallacies. For example, poisoning the well as he describes C S-C as an alleged scientist.

He continually claims people were transited through TII, but the witnesses are describing a selection process and then leaving the area without having entered the camp at TII. Only one claims she ended up in the gas chamber. None mention hair cuts, showering, medicals, nothing. There is a gaping hole in his claim about TII as a transit hygiene camp. There are no witnesses to such.

He constantly goes back to past mistakes such as use of diesel and tries to make out such mistakes continue. They do not with the academics and it is him who is preserving such errors in the public mind. It seems very odd for a so called revisionist to be critical of revision of the narrative.

He makes an odd point about how the Rabbi is not consulted with regards to the dig at the Christian cemetery. That will because he is not Christian.

His does not distinguish between bone finds by the Staffordshire Uni team on the surface of the ground and ash scattered on rocks at the pyre memorial. he claims many do such, but only evidences one man doing so. In any case the ash will soon blow away and be scattered, unlike the bones.

He goes into red herring mode over the Star of David mistake and fails to acknowledge the mistake was made on site, at the time and has since been corrected. Denier/revisionists do not appear to like it when historians make revisions and correct mistakes.

He fails to understand he is watching a made for TV documentary. So it uses imagery such as the opening photo of the boy with his hands up and the darkened colouration to make it more interesting for the lay person target. He spots the finding of the tile is badly edited and concludes (maybe correctly) it was acted out later for the cameras. Yet again, it is a documentary. There will also be scientific results published.

Then he launches in to Jews control the media and fails to understand his bias will clearly affect his conclusions.

The final finding of horse bones in the woods is evidence he went for a walk and found some horse bones. His attempts at conclusions from that are just fallacies of incredulity and further show his bias.
 
Where is the holohoax discussion ?

I cannot find the holohoax denial forum?

Is discussion of the hoax still allowed?

How do I find it?

For those interested, the best intro to the subject is provided by 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, the Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry' by Northwestern prof Arthur Butz. This is a great book, every skeptic should read it.
 
Saggy said:
I cannot find the holohoax denial forum?

Is discussion of the hoax still allowed?

How do I find it?

For those interested, the best intro to the subject is provided by 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, the Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry' by Northwestern prof Arthur Butz. This is a great book, every skeptic should read it.
Click to expand...

Butz's book is a steming pile of crap, pure nonsense, and should be read only as an example of crackpot history at it;s worse.

Funny you should come back the day that Leonard Nimoy died, since he earned the hatred of the deniers by producing and starring in the TV Movie "Never Forget" about Mel Melmerstein, the Holocaust survivor who sued The IHR (a holocaust denial organization) when they refused to pay him a 50'000 dollar reward they offered for definent proof the Holcaust happened, and won. The case established the Holocaust as a legally recognized fact,and wrecked what little reputation the IHR had.
 
Saggy said:
I cannot find the holohoax denial forum?

Is discussion of the hoax still allowed?

How do I find it?

For those interested, the best intro to the subject is provided by 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, the Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry' by Northwestern prof Arthur Butz. This is a great book, every skeptic should read it.
Click to expand...

Why read a book filled with lies and BS? What is great about lies and ignorance, which the book is based on at best.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
I cannot find the holohoax denial forum?

Is discussion of the hoax still allowed?

How do I find it?

For those interested, the best intro to the subject is provided by 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, the Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry' by Northwestern prof Arthur Butz. This is a great book, every skeptic should read it.
Click to expand...

Your text proving the holohoax is a thoroughly debunked bunch of nonsense from a racist engineer? Oh well.
 
MaxMurx said:
The point is that the video shows Ernst Zündel and other deniers being rigorously persecuted. Pro Holocausters do not speak up against that unusual practice, which means: they support it. In this case a discussion is not a discussion, science is not science. Thesis without anti thesis cannot lead to sythesis, is unscientific, if not unethical. Everybody being involved in such a pseudo discussion behaves this unethical way - deniers as well as all others. First persecution has to be removed everywhere. Then discussions can be called discussions.
Click to expand...

In my experience persecution can be summed up as people, especially academics disagreeing with them.

They seem top have this mindset that because the holocaust is accepted that responding to their claim is persecution, they don't want a two way conversation, they want to just make a statement and let whatever fish bite, bite.

And when this doesn't happen, they claim persecution.
 
I've always wanted an answer to this.

To preface, i do not have a drop of Jewish blood (full disclosure, I'm adopted, and only know half my ethnic make up. I'm often told i "look Jewish" and get mistaken for a Jewish person, though personally i am a huge fan of the Jewish people and i don't see it.) And in fact my family is a tad on the racist side. Not overly but in that old school sense.

My grandfather was in the war, and had a leg broken for assisting Jewish folks, in addition to many horror stories.

He was never an academic, never had a reason to lie about this, so why would he?

(don't be afraid of offending me because its my relative, i wouldn't ask the question as bait. And i have a very thick skin)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom