Holocaust Denial Videos

[Budly]

I am a holocaust denier, but open to your view.

There are numerous holocaust denial videos found at:
holocaustdenialvideos.com

I'm most interested in what people think about the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found there but feel free to discuss the other holocaust denial videos also.

I am asking if anyone here can watch some episodes of one of the videos and state specifically that they don't agree with in a specific episode. I request the following guidelines:

1) Discuss a specific episode of a specific video. The videos are all broken up into episodes. Don't change subject to another holocaust topic, which the videos don't cover. For instance the comment "what about the millions who saw it happen?" would be breaking this guideline, since the videos don't cover that and it thus changes the topic.

2) Don't focus on how it is or hateful to be a denier. Rather, state specifically what you don't agree with (or agree with) in a specific episode of a specific video at holocaust denial videos dot com.

Sorry to put "specific" in bold but you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get people to do this. We'll see if anyone can do it here.

[Arus808]

Sorry, but this is not how things work here. We help those who have specific questions on theories they want to have explained to them; dont expect us to spend our time to watch a bunch of videos and have US present you with questions.

YOU pick a video that you have a specific issue with (or you agree with) and then ask what our thoughts on that video is, or if a specific claim in the video is something you want an opposing view on, then point that out in a discussion thread.

But for now read these sites:
http://www.nizkor.org/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/
http://www.adl.org/holocaust/introduction.asp

[Chaos]

I am a holocaust denier, but open to your view.

In my experience, the one thing any Holocaust Denier is not is "open to your views".

All right, then, you tell us exactly what happened to the millions of Jews which you claim the Nazis did not murder. The Nazis made these Jews disappear, so it is the responsibility of the Nazis and their defenders to prove whatever else supposedly happened to them, other than being murdered by the Nazis.

[Budly]

Hi Arus808: O.K. I'll pick a video for you and an episode: Episode 1 of the video "One Third Of The Holocaust." Here is a specific question for you: Do you think Yankel Wiernik is a credible Treblinka eyewitness?

Hi Chaos: The first thing you did was break my guideline #1.

My 2 guidelines are quite reasonable.

I think that first episode is only 10 minutes long.

[Thunder]

why don't you tell us where the 6 million missing Jews went.

and there are....around 6 million missing Jews. all relevant census data before and after WW2 confirms this.

so where they at?

[Budly]

Hi Parky76: You broke Guideline #1.

My guidelines are reasonable.

[Brainster]

Hi Arus808: O.K. I'll pick a video for you and an episode: Episode 1 of the video "One Third Of The Holocaust." Here is a specific question for you: Do you think Yankel Wiernik is a credible Treblinka eyewitness?

Covered adequately here (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html).

Incidentally, Budly, are you the creator of this film, One Third of the Holocaust?

[Thunder]

Hi Parky76: You broke Guideline #1.

My guidelines are reasonable.

I.....don't....care.

:)

[The Fool]

Budly

you are a holocaust denier? What does that mean exactly? Does it mean you have your own version of history and it is correct unlike the "mainstream" version of history that is all wrong? Thats cool. What about the black plague? not interested in denying that too? Maybe WW1. (that was the war before ww2). did that happen? are you sure?? reeeeeely sure? What day is it tomorrow? Maybe it won't be the day you expect.....

You also have some "guidelines" where you only want to discuss little narrow aspects of the issue.

well son, sorry but thats not the way it works especially when your initial proposition is so stupid and offensive.

you are a holocaust denier, I am a budly debier.

sorry son, you never happened. Welcome to irrelevance.

[Budly]

Hi Brainster: Yes, that link you offered specifically discusses the first episode of the video "One Third of the Holocaust." Thank you. But that rebuttal begins with ad hominem attacks:

Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan …
... and conveyed to even more ignorant troglodytes.
I think that’s a fitting title for the first clip of our Ugly Voice Bud’s video,

Those just seem like put-downs to me. Suppose somebody posts here who believes that Uri Geller can bend spoons. Do you give them a link that explains scientifically why it's a hoax or do you give them a link that calls Uri Geller an ignorant charlatan with an ugly voice bending spoons in front of ignorant trogolodytes?

Have you yourself watched episode 1? Do you think Yankel Wiernik is a credible witness?

Regarding who I am. I'd rather not discuss that, since it draws away from the topic of this discussion.

[gtc]

What about the black plague?

Somewhat off topic but there are some academics who claim that the black death may not have been plague. John Kelly in his book 'The Great Mortality' is pretty scathing about their conclusions but doesn't question their academic approach to the topic. He aknowledges that the black plague was somewhat different to the plague we see today.

It shows that scientists can challenge accepted facts if they do so properly. Holocaust deniers often claim that challenging accepted facts is not allowed but this is because they don't usually do so properly.

[Bobert]

Those damn money grubbing sneaky JOOOOOOOOS!!!!!!

[Bobert]

Hey Budly let me guess....you believe 9-11 was an inside job

[Budly]

Hi GTC: Watch the first episode of "One Third of the Holocaust" and decide if you think challenging the facts is done properly there. I'd like to hear what you think.

Hi Bobert: You're breaking the reasonable guidelines I put down in my initial post.

Hi The Fool: You wrote that I "only want to discuss little narrow aspects of the issue." You can call it that, but if discussing an eyewitness (Yankel Wiernik) at one deathcamp (Treblinka) is a narrow aspect of an issue. So be it.

[A W Smith]

Budly

is there any evidence that would convince you that the Nazis systematically killed millions of Jews? What would it take to falsify your belief that the holocaust never happened? Or are those beliefs unfalsifiable?

Here's an interesting audio from The Holocaust History Project (http://www.holocaust-history.org/)


http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/himmler-poznan-large.mov

Auschwitz guards nightmares linger (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Auschwitz-guards-life-of-lingering-nightmares/2005/01/26/1106415663534.html)

Schroeder admits ordinary Germans' role (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Schroeder-admits-ordinary-Germans-role/2005/01/26/1106415663543.html)

66 questions and answers about the Holocaust (http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/)

http://tc.usc.edu/vhitc/(fu15lgm0lsfxthfmepp40gq4)/default.aspx (http://tc.usc.edu/vhitc/%28fu15lgm0lsfxthfmepp40gq4%29/default.aspx)




repost of my response to Holocaust denial (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3190735&postcount=1218)

[Arus808]

Im sorry, Budly, but no real conversation can be had until you take the time (and it will take you SOMe major amount of time) to read over these sites:

But for now read these sites:
http://www.nizkor.org/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/
http://www.adl.org/holocaust/introduction.asp


Nizkor alone took me a couple months just to get through. Seeing that you responded so quickly, its obvious that you didn't bother to read the above websites.

Please do so. And when you have, then come back if you have a specific question

[Arus808]

Hi Brainster: Yes, that link you offered specifically discusses the first episode of the video "One Third of the Holocaust." Thank you. But that rebuttal begins with ad hominem attacks:

Have you yourself watched episode 1? Do you think Yankel Wiernik is a credible witness?

Regarding who I am. I'd rather not discuss that, since it draws away from the topic of this discussion.

so the opening to a page, where the REST is supported by evidence will go wholly ignored by you?

Yeah, you really want to engage in some debate here.

[fullflavormenthol]

The guidelines are not reasonable, if these episodes are part of a greater whole than that greater whole is up for discussion; and if that greater whole is discussing the Holocaust, than the whole of Holocaust research is legitimate to bring into the discussion.

The above sentence is broken up into segments (episodes), if you want to disagree than do so be citing something specific about a specific segment.

Of course that is silly, and I wouldn't expect anyone to follow it. That being said I am not going to follow your guidelines, and I will be discussing the subject matter with the other people on this thread.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am a holocaust denier...

What do you have against the jewish people?

[Budly]

Hi A.W. Smith

You broke Guideline #1.

[A W Smith]

Hi A.W. Smith

You broke Guideline #1.


too bad. You do not make the rules here. And you broke forum rules by not commenting but merely linking to a video and asking for us to comment on it. that's spamming. You play by our rules here.

you want to discuss videos? then discuss this one

NOW
http://www.holocaust-history.org/him...znan-large.mov (http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/himmler-poznan-large.mov)

[Budly]

Hi Arus808: I'm familiar with all those sites. But only one of those 4 sites specifically discusses the videos. NIZKOR, for instance, doesn't discuss the videos. You wrote
YOU pick a video that you have a specific issue with (or you agree with) and then ask what our thoughts on that video is, or if a specific claim in the video is something you want an opposing view on, then point that out in a discussion thread.
I obliged but you're dodging what I picked and what I asked.

Name edited to correct spelling of member name.

[Arus808]

Hi A.W. Smith

You broke Guideline #1.


Sorry, but no "rules" were established and agreed to. We dont play games here, especially with a subject like the Holocaust.

Instead of replying about who broke some unagreed set of rules, why haven't you bothered to read these sites:

http://www.nizkor.org/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/
http://www.adl.org/holocaust/introduction.asp



They will take YOU MONTHS to go through.

[Budly]

Hi FullFlavorMenthol:

The Guidelines are reasonable. If episode 2 of the video "One Third of the Holocaust" is titled "water well." And it's 3 minutes long and about a water well at Treblinka, then I think it's reasonable to discuss that, and not bring up Auschwitz, for instance.

[Budly]

Hi A.W. Smith

I broke forum rules by asking what you think about a video? And your response is to post a video about the Poznan speech which has nothing to do with any video at holocaust denial videos dot com? How hard is it to watch some of the videos there yourself and offer an opinion? I think Yankel Wiernik is a fraud. He's the subject of episode 1 of the video "One Third of the Holocaust." What do you think?

[A W Smith]

Hi A.W. Smith

I broke forum rules by asking what you think about a video? And your response is to post a video about the Poznan speech which has nothing to do with any video at holocaust denial videos dot com? How hard is it to watch some of the videos there yourself and offer an opinion? I think Yankel Wiernik is a fraud. He's the subject of episode 1 of the video "One Third of the Holocaust." What do you think?

i think you have been exposed Bud
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html

this is your page and this is your "manifesto" Bud


from
http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/
Manifesto
I advocate kindness and good vibes toward all Jewish people. I like black people and people of all races, nationalities, religions; and I like gay people. It goes without saying but due to the stigma associated with holocaust denial, it needs to be said. I feel that it was Hitler's belief in military solutions that was primarily responsible for the European disaster that was World War II. I just believe the holocaust is a hoax. Today it is the holocaust myth that props up militarism. Here's why:
Of the many terrible things about World War II, the single worst thing wasn't the holocaust, because that's a myth. The worst thing was German soldiers fighting Soviet soldiers because millions of young men on both sides died horrible deaths. That war was started by Hitler and, rather than the crude concept of "fighting communism," it galvanized Stalin's power and made void the internal workings within the USSR that might have deposed him. The young men put between Stalin and Hitler and being conscripted to fight, was the worst thing about WWII. And the lesson from that is militarism and military solutions are always a disaster. That lesson is obscured when the worst thing about World War II is considered to be the holocaust because then the opposite conclusion is drawn: militarism seems good. Righteous militarism to defeat Hitler. Fighting intolerance. Americans largely see World War II as the "good fight" against Evil. The holocaust myth props up that assertion and obscures the truth: World War II was a European disaster.
The holocaust myth gives a "fighting for tolerance" theme to World War II, and the "fighting for tolerance" theme continues to justify military aggression up to recent times: it was used to justify the US invasion of Serbia/Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The wrong conclusions about World War II based on the false information that is the holocaust, reverberate into militaristic solutions creating disasters today.
Because the holocaust myth was never exposed, the masses never lost their gullibility and are easily manipulated for pro-war purposes. Here's an example: before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, not only did most Americans believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, many also believed he had killed millions of his own people.
The good/evil narrative of WWII is a blur with the good/evil narrative of so many bad movies, t.v. shows, and reportage. Things become more and more like the movie Idiocracy, and fitting that the ending of that movie involves a dumbed-down explanation of World War II. In reality people aren't really "evil" --there's just the challenge of understanding why people do what they do. The holocaust myth holds up the conception of Evil itself.
Christianity is a proud and interesting cultural heritage. But as a present-day belief system it can hold people back intellectually and culturally. A fundamental of Christianity is it's dumb portrayal of evil. But consider the possibility that a modern dumb portrayal of evil is the holocaust. So like Christianity, could the holocaust also hold people back intellectually and culturally? A fundamental of both being a worldview of good and evil? And could this hold society back, ping pong-ing, or reinforced with, media capitalism? We see news reporting and television shows, movies promoting righteous violence to take on "evil people." On a global level the "evil people" are often resistant to capitalism like North Korea; or resistant to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (Iraq, Taliban, Al-Qaeda) Again the movie Idiocracy comes to mind when it had a stadium sports-like media spectacle of the USA using overwhelming force on it's enemies. The stadium spectators playing electric guitars while monster trucks ran over the enemies.
Not to mention that the false postulate that is the holocaust is the cornerstone of European Jewish colonialism in Israel and all the problems which have come from it. Iran's Ahmadinejad is right about that. We have the horrible bookends of European Colonialism: European Christian colonialism (The Crusades) 850 years ago, and European Jewish colonialism (Zionism) from the early 1900's till today. These bookends of colonialism had European laws associated with them: Heresy then, and denying the holocaust today. The laws keep people from debunking the intellectual/emotional basis of the colonialism, of the militarism of the colonizers.
In Germany the myth has ridiculously warped the general personality of the people. But it's not just Germany: The longer European and American intellectual thought has in it's foundation this false postulate that is the holocaust, the weirder and dumber things are going to get.
It's time to move beyond the myth.


and this again is my answer to your "manifesto"
Originally Posted by kageki http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3190533#post3190533)
- Not exclusive to Jews. Final Solution seems to be about deportation.
- No extermination camps. They were labor camps. http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/EMS/History_Pages/Holocaust/atrocopening13.gif
Not much labor going on here, Are they waiting for the deportation bus?



- Mass killings did occur, but again no Nazi death factories.
- No gas chambers. No ovens. http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/EMS/History_Pages/Holocaust/krema4auschwitz.gif

Sure looks like a death factory to me, Why such huge chimneys for such a small factory building? Whatever they "made' sure didn't take up much floor space but sure produced an awful lot of smoke. The rear of this building is where they had to "shower up" before starting production for the day

No burning pits. http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/EMS/History_Pages/Holocaust/pit.gif

Must have been the morning fog then, wake up. wake up Juden. Time to go to work.

- Not 6 million. Well then where did they vanish to then? lemme guess. Miami?

To summaries. I don't even think hell has a place for such cretins as holocaust deniers. Even that is too good for them. Thankfully nature and the human species through selection discards such freaks and they are forced to live a life of ignorance. Ostracized by society, they hide in their caverns of blatent stupidity to die off with a whimper. Blaming their failure and shortcomings in life on those who are more adept to compete in society.

[fullflavormenthol]

Hi FullFlavorMenthol:

The Guidelines are reasonable. If episode 2 of the video "One Third of the Holocaust" is titled "water well." And it's 3 minutes long and about a water well at Treblinka, then I think it's reasonable to discuss that, and not bring up Auschwitz, for instance.
Oh...so basically you want to use a bias video alone to argue against the reality of the Holocaust and forbid any contradictory evidence?

Also you violated my completely legitimate rules as to arguing with my point. :rolleyes:

This is like me going into the Science forum and demanding a debate on creationism, and only allowing a discussion on the first chapter of genesis without allowing any other sources to be used.

Why don't you present an argument, in your own words here, and allow people to debate it? What are you afraid of?

[Budly]

Hi Arus808,

This isn't a general discussion of "holocaust denial." I think my initial post made it pretty clear that I'd like people here to watch some short episodes of a video and offer an opinion. You can't seem to do that, and instead offer a bunch of links, most of which don't mention the videos at holocaust denial videos dot com.

Name edited to correct spelling of member name.

[fullflavormenthol]

Hi Arus808,

This isn't a general discussion of "holocaust denial." I think my initial post made it pretty clear that I'd like people here to watch some short episodes of a video and offer an opinion. You can't seem to do that, and instead offer a bunch of links, most of which don't mention the videos at holocaust denial videos dot com.
Okay, submit a link to them and I will watch them; but I will present my opinions of them with no regard to your little rules. In fact that is what you will get from this forum.


Name edited to correct spelling of member name.

[A W Smith]

Hi Arus808,

This isn't a general discussion of "holocaust denial." I think my initial post made it pretty clear that I'd like people here to watch some short episodes of a video and offer an opinion. You can't seem to do that, and instead offer a bunch of links, most of which don't mention the videos at holocaust denial videos dot com.


this blog here discusses the videos you made
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html
and I agree with him.
Name edited to correct spelling of member name.

[lionking]

Covered adequately here (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html).

Incidentally, Budly, are you the creator of this film, One Third of the Holocaust?

Why don't you answer this question bud(ly)? Being honest with members would be a good start.

[Questioninggeller]

I am asking if anyone here can watch some episodes of one of the videos and state specifically that they don't agree with in a specific episode.


The onus is on you to refute historical consensus.

You have the Shermer's appearance on Donahue. That's a fine place to start. Read his book Denying History and explain how his refutations, in your opinion, fail. He specifically addresses that appearance.

If you don't like that then read Robert Jan van Pelt's book The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, which helped refute Irving and was a major blow to the falsifers of history.

As Holocaust deniers use the same discredited arguments, until we see something new you can read the books that deal with the subject.

[Budly]

Hi Questioninggeller: You broke guideline #1. But were you to watch that Donahue episode and comment on Michael Schermer, you'd actually be the first person here to do what I reasonably requested.

By the way does anyone know why this topic isn't showing up in "recent threads"? Posts here are more recent than the threads listed.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why do you hate jews, Budly?

What about them invokes your ire?

What, if anything, did a jew ever do to you?

Is it just the jews or are there any other ethnic, racial or religious groups you feel compelled to unload on?

Guideline #1: Reponses to my questions must use my proper honorific title.

[Budly]

Hi Sword Of Truth,

You broke Guideline #2, as put forth in my initial post.

[Questioninggeller]

Hi Questioninggeller: You broke guideline #1. But were you to watch that Donahue episode and comment on Michael Schermer, you'd actually be the first person here to do what I reasonably requested.


I think you should answer the questions already presented via that blog, which raises serious points. But, I'll play along...

Let's start with the Donahue clip right when Shermer first appears on the show, Shermer talking and your video cuts Shermer's sentence mid-way to show a Cole clip.

Video here:
http://holocaustdenialvideos.com/donahue_b.html

Cole, who has never published any works nor has any degrees, makes many claims in there about Zyklon B. Let's pick one:

Jean-Claude Pressac, a former Holocaust denier, is cited by Cole as an authority on figures and claims 95% of Zyklon B was not used in gas chambers. His book Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, which Cole cites, was published by the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation.

As you might know, the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation is not an academic press. It is ran by Serge Klarsfeld (http://www.neveklarsfeld.org/nevekproject.shtml) for "collecting and publishing of personal data of the Holocaust," which seems to lack academic rigor/peer review. While this foundation has a passion for making Holocaust material available, I have serious skepticism about the quality of work produced.

More to the point, there is one copy of this book for $900 on Amazon and I couldn't even find it in google scholar (http://scholar.google.com) to see who has cited it. (I couldn't even find an ISBN number for it even though it was published in 1989!)

So my questions to discuss:
1) Why should we take the word of Jean-Claude Pressac as an authority on these figures? He's not a historian. Where'd he get his degrees? Did he teach? Was he peer-reviewed in his own field?
2) How does he come up with such numbers (I ask because I'm not paying $900 for the book)? Methodology? His sources?
3) What proof do you have that these numbers are used by historians (I point you to the fact that he is not a historian and has no credentials in history)? Basically, here I want to see some peer-review. Do Holocaust scholars accept these numbers? Do they reject them? What have Holocaust scholars said about such figures? What numbers have Holocaust scholars given?


This is the problem in general for the Holocaust deniers: sourcing. All too often deniers take little bits of something that isn't a real issue and move the goal post. Your video completely avoided Shermer's point by citing a denier who cited a former denier with dubious historical qualifications and was published by a non-academic publisher with questionable, if any, peer-review.

In sum, please answer those questions above and I'll move on to my second point based on your response.

[Budly]

Hi Questioninggeller,

Thank you for finally doing what I had requested: watching an episode and commenting. It took 36 posts before someone could do that, which is astonishing to me.

You are asking about the credibility of using Jean Claude Pressac and his book Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. I think it's a valid source because, as the video shows, it's listed under "Further Reading" on the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In other words, the USHMM thinks it's a valid source. My guess is the USHMM would review it before recommending it.

I once read some of this book on google books, but noticed that it's no longer there, which is weird.

This episode of "Phil Donahue Analysis" uses a clip from "The David Cole Video" which is also on holocaust denial videos dot com, if you're wondering where that came from.

I can't answer your questions about who Pressac is, but thanks for asking and you have me interested also. Pressac claims that 95 percent of Zyklon B was used for delousing, and I would also like to know his source for that.

Look forward to hearing your comments on other episodes.

[lionking]

Hi Questioninggeller,

Thank you for finally doing what I had requested: watching an episode and commenting. It took 36 posts before someone could do that, which is astonishing to me.



I find it astonishing that anyone responded to someone who comes here with repeatedly debunked material and sets guidelines like he owned the forum.

Your lack of response to Brainster and my earlier questions leads me to conclude you are responsible for the videos. Why are you afraid to admit it?

[Questioninggeller]

Hi Questioninggeller,

Thank you for finally doing what I had requested: watching an episode and commenting. It took 36 posts before someone could do that.

You are asking about the credibility of using Jean Claude Pressac and his book Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. I think it's a valid source because, as the video shows, it's listed under "Further Reading" on the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In other words, the USHMM thinks it's a valid source.

Sorry, but my point was on a particular claim Cole made about the book, which you felt the need to repeat. (As you know books can get recommended despite specific errors, mistakes, or incorrect points.) In particular, this denialist claim I would like either supported or withdrawn from your video:


Pressac claims that 95 percent of Zyklon B was used for delousing

Do you stand by that figure? If you stand by that figure because the Holocaust Memorial Museum recommends the reading why don't you accept everything else in the book? Why do you believe that figure is correct and not everything else?


I can't answer your questions about who Pressac is, but thanks for asking and you have me interested also.

Look forward to hearing your comments on other episodes.

You don't know his qualifications/status/standing in the academic community and yet you cite an obscure book.

You are going to ignore all my questions about the source you inserted in between Shermer's comments? I'll repost my questions for the sake of making my point about the figures/sourcing in your videos:


So my questions to discuss:
1) Why should we take the word of Jean-Claude Pressac as an authority on these figures? He's not a historian. Where'd he get his degrees? Did he teach? Was he peer-reviewed in his own field?
2) How does he come up with such numbers (I ask because I'm not paying $900 for the book)? Methodology? His sources?
3) What proof do you have that these numbers are used by historians (I point you to the fact that he is not a historian and has no credentials in history)? Basically, here I want to see some peer-review. Do Holocaust scholars accept these numbers? Do they reject them? What have Holocaust scholars said about such figures? What numbers have Holocaust scholars given?


If you want to cite a fringe source to use a figure that the scholars don't accept to refute scholars, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Maybe in the future you will answer the questions or choose to be skeptical of repeating a claim from a non-historian to criticize work done by historians.


Edit to add Bud's addition:
My guess is the USHMM would review it before recommending it.


Maybe, maybe not. By a scholar? By an intern compling a bibliography? I bet I (and other members of this forum) can send email linked to this thread (and the points I made) and get it removed from there soon. If I do will you remove that from your video as well?

I really want to know why the Holocaust Museum is a valid source that book (and you believe that figure), but you ignore everything else on that website...

[Budly]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

The US Holocaust Memorial Museum website has a "Holocaust Encyclopedia." If you look up "gas chamber" you get an article called "Gassing Operations." After the article, there are 4 sources listed for further reading. Pressac's book is listed as number three, and no I don't think you're going to be able to get that removed by sending them an email with a link to this thread. Do I stand by the books allegation that 95 percent of Zyklon B was used for delousing? Answer: No, since I believe that 100% of the Zyklon B was used for delousing. But the point in the video is that a recognized source (as in recognized by the USHMM) states essentially that a pile of Zyklon B cannisters is not evidence for the holocaust. At least 95 out of 100 cannisters anyway.

Hi Lionking: As I've already mentioned, I don't want to divulge my identity which is an option for users of forums like this. Also, it would draw away from the subject of the thread.

[Arus808]

The subject is Holocaust denial, and you are ignoring WELL established evidence of what happened there. Again, NO one agreed to your arbitrary rules (one sided) nor did we agree to them.

This is forum to discuss the topics that are conspiracy in nature. IF you dont like the rules as set by the MEMBERSHIP agreement you AGREED to, you can leave.

YOU do not dictate how conversations flow here, and you can't simply dismiss something because someone here doesn't want to play hyour pathetic little game.

YOU were given SEVERAL sites to refer to that have touched upon EVERY SINGLE lie that the holocaust deniers have set fort YOU are bringing nothing new to the table.
Why have you not bothered to read the links provided? Thats a couple of monhts of reading material alone

[Questioninggeller]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

The US Holocaust Memorial Museum website has a "Holocaust Encyclopedia." If you look up "gas chamber" you get an article called "Gassing Operations." After the article, there are 4 sources listed for further reading. Pressac's book is listed as number three, and no I don't think you're going to be able to get that removed by sending them an email with a link to this thread. Do I stand by the books allegation that 95 percent of Zyklon B was used for delousing? Answer: No, since I believe that 100% of the Zyklon B was used for delousing. But the point in the video is that a recognized source (as in recognized by the USHMM) states essentially that a pile of Zyklon B cannisters is not evidence for the holocaust.


So let me see if I understand what just happened above:

1) You include a video of Cole citing a specific claim in a book. Cole ignores everything else in the book.
2) You believe a book is "valid" because the Holocaust Museum puts in on its internet website.** You ignore everything else on the website.
3) Now, you say you don't believe that book because you "believe that 100% of the Zyklon B was used for delousing."


Is that correct?



**Budly wrote: "I think it's a valid source..."

[Foolmewunz]

Is someone planning for this thread to go on for a while?



Note the tags....
Belzec, Buchenwald, Idi Amin, israel, nuremberg, palestine, Psychological Warfare, Sobibor, treblinka

[Budly]

Hi Arus808,

The subject isn't "holocaust denial" in general. That's obviously what you and A.W. Smith think, since he decided to put up his own video and photos and discuss those instead.

Maybe you can understand this in 9-11 terms: If I want to discuss the plane flying into the Pentagon, and a poster wants to talk about the World Trade Center, and I specifically want to talk about the Pentagon...do you see the point? I.e. parameters of discussion can be set by the intro post. We're discussing specific videos which promote holocaust denial, and the links I was offered (except one) are to sites which are not apparently aware of these videos. I'm familiar with these sites, which is why I know that Nizkor, for instance, doesn't deal with these videos.

Name edited to correct spelling of member name.
Budly, please do not alter names, especially if the altered name is insulting of if the member has asked that people not alter it in this fashion. If you are having problems spelling, you can use cut-and-paste. Better yet, use the quote button http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/quote.gif which is at the bottom-right of every post. This will start a new post with the name and the text of the post you are replying to in a quote box. If you need help with the forum functions, try the FAQs (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127353)or Member Support (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

Thank you

[Budly]

Hi Foolmewunz,

Those tags relate to the videos found at holocaust denial videos dot com. Would you like the thread removed or something? If a moderator wants to remove those tags, that's fine with me. But, Idi Amin, is discussed in the video "Nazi Shrunken Heads" for instance. "Psychological Warfare" was discussed in the Buchenwald video for instance. That's why those tags are there. Think of the heterogenous tags that would be part of the movie Zeitgeist Addendum, for instance.

[Budly]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

It's not what I include, it's what the video includes. Cole refers to what the book says about piles of cans of Zyklon B. I think if the USHMM uses it as a reference, then it's not spurious for a denial video to use it as a source.

The book says 95%, I believe 100%. Perhaps we can move on, because I'm restating here what I've already said.

[Arus808]

edited out modded issue.
The subject isn't "holocaust denial" in general. That's obviously what you and A.W. Smith think, since he decided to put up his own video and photos and discuss those instead.


So what? Why must we adhere to YOUR videos (and your rules), when there are MANY other videos and documents online that address the CLAIMS in your videos.

Again, the title of your thread is Holocaust Denial Videos. Did you miss the part where it says "Holocaust Denial" ? That means you open up the thread to ADDRESS The overall subject at hand. Not just the videos; which YOU" yet to provide a reason to ask us to watch them, as it presents NOTHING new, to the entire holcaust denial claims. As pointed out, the video you want us to watch was already dealt with

If you have a specific claim that hasn't been addressed before (in videos or not), then post that. Do not regurgitate long debunked claims.

[Budly]

Hi Arus808,

I didn't mean to spell your name wrong. Sorry. I'm new to the forum and not familiar with the names. Why don't you watch one of the videos and comment on it. I already gave you, per your request, an episode and a question regarding that episode.

[Questioninggeller]

It's not what I include, it's what the video includes.


So you just denied that it's your video even though its the same voice over as the rest of holocaustdenialvideos.com's videos?

I hope you aren't denying that Budly, youtube.com/denierbud (http://www.youtube.com/denierbud), holocaustdenialvideos.com (http://holocaustdenialvideos.com/rebuttals.html) are the same person.


It's not what I include, it's what the video includes. Cole refers to what the book says about piles of cans of Zyklon B. I think if the USHMM uses it as a reference, then it's not spurious for a denial video to also use it.

The book says 95%, I believe 100%. Perhaps we can move on, because it feels like we're going around and around on this.

So you are willing to pick and choose what to include based on what? You are going to accept the Holocaust Museum as a source when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

That is not intellectually honest. In fact, it shows you are not "open" to other "views" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5015734&postcount=1).

I must ask what source/reason you have for dismissing what you called a "valid source" (Pressac's book) specifically mentioned in the video:

http://holocaustdenialvideos.com/donahue_b.html

Again, we are playing by your "guidelines" to "discuss a specific episode of a specific video."

[fullflavormenthol]

Budly, just post the links so that the rest of us don't have to go hunting them down. I will watch them and give you my opinion. Of course it will be on my own terms, and not yours.

[Vermonter]

I find Holocaust deniers to be very disturbing. Back in 2002, I went on a trip to Germany and as part of the trip we went to Buchenwald in Weimar. I personally saw the ovens and gas chambers inside the camp, with remains still inside them. It was chilling.

Have you been to one of these camps, Budly? If all you have are ideas and baseless claims from some crackpot website, I suggest you take a trip to Germany and get yourself a real history lesson.

[Budly]

Hi Fullflavormenthol,

Thanks. As a new member I'm not allowed to post links. They are videos found at holocaust denial videos dot com. I'd start with "One Third of the Holocaust."

[Budly]

Hi Vermonter,

That's interesting that you mention that, because had you gone to holocaust videos dot com, you would have seen there's a 2 hour video on Buchenwald, the camp you visited.

I personally saw the ovens and gas chambers inside the camp,
I don't know how you could have seen a gas chamber there, since Buchenwald didn't have a gas chamber even according to the standard story put forth by holocaust scholars. You can verify this by looking it up at the Holocaust Encyclopedia at the ushmm.org.

Similarly if you go to the official Buchenwald website at Buchenwald.de you won't find a mention of a gas chamber, so I'm not sure how you saw one there.

[Questioninggeller]

Anyone find it hypocritical that holocaustdenialvideos.com (http://holocaustdenialvideos.com/rebuttals.html) writes about his youtube.com/denierbud (http://www.youtube.com/denierbud) account:


Below is a sort of scrapbook of censorship: Good faith efforts to solicit rebuttals, and blocked attempts to promote the video One Third Of The Holocaust.
...
22 chapters of my video got deleted in one day on July 2, 2007, and I got a separate automated email message for each one. The other chapters had been deleted long before. 31 videos posted. 31 removed. I went through the Youtube appeal process to protest their being deleted, and as a result, I succeeded in getting Youtube staff to put back up the first episode of "One Third of the Holocaust" but whatever internal workings at google/youtube happened, 8 months later, out of the blue, the first episode of One Third Of the Holocaust got deleted for a second time. Currently I have 3 videos on youtube. One is a video that discusses youtube censoring me. ...

If you look at those three videos at youtube.com/denierbud (http://www.youtube.com/denierbud) each one says: "Adding comments has been disabled for this video."

Why would someone who complains about censorship and the lack of rebuttals disable people from responding to his videos?

[abenja1]

Budly, unfortunatly you have opened up a can of worms that is very pungent. The reason you are getting such a hostile reception is the experience that JREF has had with Holocaust deniers. Myself, I have never debated a holocaust denier that was open to debate. It's simlpy "The Holohoax (as some of them call it) didn't happen. End." As well, when we confront them with the evidence they either 1) Run away or 2) deny it's real evidence by saying it's fabricated, paid for by the gov't etc etc. A poster here by the name of Magz has done both 1 and 2.

You maybe willing to debate, but are you willing to accept facts is the real question.

[fullflavormenthol]

Well I will just be honest and write that my agent orange is acting up when someone says they are open to debate and then puts a bunch of restrictions on what they will accept in a debate.

[Questioninggeller]

Budly, unfortunatly you have opened up a can of worms that is very pungent. The reason you are getting such a hostile reception is the experience that JREF has had with Holocaust deniers. Myself, I have never debated a holocaust denier that was open to debate. It's simlpy "The Holohoax (as some of them call it) didn't happen. End." As well, when we confront them with the evidence they either 1) Run away or 2) deny it's real evidence by saying it's fabricated, paid for by the gov't etc etc. A poster here by the name of Magz has done both 1 and 2.

You maybe willing to debate, but are you willing to accept facts is the real question.

Indeed, I agree.

I'm the only one playing by Budly's "rules," but alas I get no reply to why he rejects what he called a "valid" source from his own video that he edited and gave a voiceover to.

My post: #49 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5017413&postcount=49) at 06:30 AM
Vermonter: #51 at 06:32 AM
Budly: #53 at 06:59 AM

(Assuming, as evidence suggests, that youtube.com/denierbud (http://www.youtube.com/denierbud)/holocaustdenialvideos.com and budly are one in the same.)

[Vermonter]

Hi Vermonter,

That's interesting that you mention that, because had you gone to holocaust videos dot com, you would have seen there's a 2 hour video on Buchenwald, the camp you visited.

I don't know how you could have seen a gas chamber there, since Buchenwald didn't have a gas chamber even according to the standard story put forth by holocaust scholars. You can verify this by looking it up at the Holocaust Encyclopedia at the ushmm.org.

Similarly if you go to the official Buchenwald website at Buchenwald.de you won't find a mention of a gas chamber, so I'm not sure how you saw one there.

I'll give you that one. I -thought- it was a chamber, but you are correct. However, there were still slaughter rooms within the camp. My other points are still 100% valid. Care to refute those?

[Questioninggeller]

Do a google search for Thomas Blatt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Blatt), a Holocaust survivor.

The first website that comes up is the wikipedia, the second is Budly's Holocaust denial website calling Blatt a "fraud," then the rest are poland.usembassy.gov , pbs.org , imdb.com and so on.

Disgusting.

[JoeyDonuts]

I'll give you that one. I -thought- it was a chamber, but you are correct. However, there were still slaughter rooms within the camp. My other points are still 100% valid. Care to refute those?

Are you referring to the space directly underneath the crematorium with the hooks mounted high up on the walls?

If I'm not mistaken quite a few Soviet prisoners were executed there before they were entered on the camp's ledgers - about 8,000 don't appear on the official SS acount of the Buchenwald death toll.

Even had a special room disguised as a medical facility. They'd line the prisoner up against a wall with a height-measuring device affixed to it. This had a hole through which a person would fire a single shot through the neck of the prisoner, killing him instantly.

Oh, and BTW - does this 'Budly' character have anything to do with the IHR?

[gtc]

If, as it seems likely, you are the author of those videos then you have been dishonest.

I would be much more willing to look at your video if you had said that you deny the holocaust and here is the evidence (in the form of a series of videos) that you have put together to prove it.

I also think it is dishonest to try to exclude all the evidence that we have that the holocaust did happen. That is the elephant in the room that no video you produce can obscure.

[Lonewulf]

My 2 guidelines are quite reasonable.

Look, I could see limiting the discussion when talking about the Apollo Moon Landing, something which the average person is a bit ignorant on the details of, but the holocaust in WWII is just a bit out there. And then you claim to be open minded and yet limit the debate away from the biggest pieces of evidence, which I consider less "reasonable" and more "disingenuous".

Personally, I've been to Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau. I've seen the tons of human hair harvested. I've seen the thousands upon thousands of rims of glasses. I've seen the thousands of luggage cases. I've seen the ovens. I've seen the cells. I've seen pretty much everything there was to see, including the photographs taken of those exiting the trains, and mugshots of a countless variety of prisoners, each one individually recorded as dying at a certain year.

And this isn't even counting war footage, or what was discovered when the camps were liberated by both the Russians and the Americans, both of which recorded practically the same thing. I've also seen the footage of Russian doctors handling the sick and disabled survivors of the camps.

If the Holocaust never happened, it would be the most massive conspiracy on the face of the planet, even more of a conspiracy than "The Illuminati have taken over the world". It's just simply not plausible. That's why so many of us see no reason to even entertain discussion over such a restricted debate like this; because the idea is so preposterous, it's like asking us to discuss, in specific, a man walking beside a dinosaur while positing that all men walked beside dinosaurs. Why, when the initial idea was so stupid to begin with?

[Nick Terry]

I am a holocaust denier, but open to your view.

There are numerous holocaust denial videos found at:
holocaustdenialvideos.com

I'm most interested in what people think about the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found there but feel free to discuss the other holocaust denial videos also.

I am asking if anyone here can watch some episodes of one of the videos and state specifically that they don't agree with in a specific episode. I request the following guidelines:

1) Discuss a specific episode of a specific video. The videos are all broken up into episodes. Don't change subject to another holocaust topic, which the videos don't cover. For instance the comment "what about the millions who saw it happen?" would be breaking this guideline, since the videos don't cover that and it thus changes the topic.

2) Don't focus on how it is or hateful to be a denier. Rather, state specifically what you don't agree with (or agree with) in a specific episode of a specific video at holocaust denial videos dot com.

Sorry to put "specific" in bold but you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get people to do this. We'll see if anyone can do it here.

Turning up here and suggesting the JREF skeptics discuss these videos is like a 14 year old boy popping up and saying 'hey! whaddya think of Loose Change?!'

Every single one of those videos has been debunked here (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv) at Holocaust Controversies. Whining that "those just seem like put-downs to me" is hilarious.

Perhaps, instead of trying argumentum ad YouTubium, you might have the wit to put forward a specific, focused argument yourself?

Data-dumping a 30 part video does not amount to a reasoned argument, but is in fact simply propaganda. You have met with an overwhelmingly negative response, so I guess the attempt to get people to watch videos that are three years old has failed.

I'll note in passing that while I belong to the HC blog team I did not write up any of the 'One Third of the Holocaust' videos for the simple reason that it is beneath me, as an academic, to bother with arguments that are 'written up' on a YouTube video. If one of my students submitted an essay in the form of a video they would get an instant zero, just as if they had been caught plagiarising.

I'll also note that members of the HC blog team as well as non-denier members of the RODOH forum threw down a challenge (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-open-debate-on-aktion-reinhard.html) to the 'revisionist' community to debate the Aktion Reinhard camps of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka in a formal manner.

Although a revisionist team were initially willing to pick up that gauntlet, it now looks like the team has collapsed of its own internal discord and laziness. This after we were informed privately that a number of prominent online revisionists 'flatly refused' to take part in the debate. Were you one of those who refused, 'budly' aka denierbud? I rather think you were, given the non-response to the criticisms levelled at your videos.

That, folks, is basically that. Everyone has heard of Holocaust denial, it gets mentioned in speeches by presidents and prime ministers, and reported on in newspapers when one of these troglodytes violates the laws of the few countries that criminalise it as a form of antisemitism (which it most certainly is).

But online, it seems that 'revisionism' cannot muster even a six-a-side soccer team to engage skeptics in proper debate.

Not to worry; we'll be publishing our challenge to the chickens this autumn anyway. So you guys lose doubly; you're too chicken to engage in formal debate, and you'll have to contend with the debunkings anyway.

I suspect you'll all do the la-la-la-can't-hear-you routine that is so beloved of CTs; but that's okay; you thereby confirm that you really are CTs, and not as you pretend to be, people advocating a rationally formulated argument.

[Foolmewunz]

Hey, good to see you, Nick!

For those of you who may not be aware of Nick's work, he's been doing battle with Holocaust Deniers on the intertubes for some time. Saying "Nick Terry is here" to a Denier is like saying "I think I see Gravy over there" to a 911 'droid.
(Sorry if I embarass you, Nick. Your encyclopedic memory for the crap these people spew always amazes me. I'm an unabashed fan.)

[lionking]

Good stuff Nick. I don't know you, but foolmewunz is a stand-up guy and his recommendation is good enough for me. :)

[funk de fino]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

The US Holocaust Memorial Museum website has a "Holocaust Encyclopedia." If you look up "gas chamber" you get an article called "Gassing Operations." After the article, there are 4 sources listed for further reading. Pressac's book is listed as number three, and no I don't think you're going to be able to get that removed by sending them an email with a link to this thread. Do I stand by the books allegation that 95 percent of Zyklon B was used for delousing? Answer: No, since I believe that 100% of the Zyklon B was used for delousing. But the point in the video is that a recognized source (as in recognized by the USHMM) states essentially that a pile of Zyklon B cannisters is not evidence for the holocaust. At least 95 out of 100 cannisters anyway.

You need to focus here bud. Your post is gibberish and does not in any way resemble an answer to the questions put to you.

Why are there so many holocaust memorials in Germany? Have you ever been there?

[Foolmewunz]

Good stuff Nick. I don't know you, but foolmewunz is a stand-up guy and his recommendation is good enough for me. :)

Oh, pshaw!

Seriously - skeptics more than anyone shouldn't just take my word for it, regardless that I'm an all around swell guy.... check out some of his and his co-debunkers' work on the link he posted above (and on his profile).

[lionking]

Oh, pshaw!

Seriously - skeptics more than anyone shouldn't just take my word for it, regardless that I'm an all around swell guy.... check out some of his and his co-debunkers' work on the link he posted above (and on his profile).
Thus the smilie. I did check Nick out.

[Nick Terry]

Hey, good to see you, Nick!

For those of you who may not be aware of Nick's work, he's been doing battle with Holocaust Deniers on the intertubes for some time. Saying "Nick Terry is here" to a Denier is like saying "I think I see Gravy over there" to a 911 'droid.
(Sorry if I embarass you, Nick. Your encyclopedic memory for the crap these people spew always amazes me. I'm an unabashed fan.)

:blush:

As I said above, I did not take part in the debunking of the denierbud videos, so I nominate my colleagues at HC, especially Roberto Muehlenkamp and Sergey Romanov, as the Gravies of anti-denial.

I'm also not much of a blogger since most of what I work on is going into academic publications.

[Budly]

I basically asked if anyone here wanted to take a look at some videos that promote holocaust denial and give their opinion on those videos. Not on holocaust denial in general which makes the topic too broad. We're on page 2 of the thread and just one person has done it.

Some people were upset by my parameters. Parameters are always laid out in the initial post, but I just made them very clear since it's hard to get people to focus on certain elements of the holocaust. If I said "I want to discuss the book of Genesis" would Arus808 be upset and tell me that I don't make the rules here and bring up the book of Matthew and have a general discussion about the bible?

I'll tell you what: watch 1 or more episodes of the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found at holocaust denial videos dot com (I can't post links as a new member) and afterward, go to holocaustcontroversies dot blogspot dot com and find the rebuttal to that episode, and read that. Afterward, come back here and write your own opinion of the video. Is that too outrageous to ask?

Special request to Nick Terry: the holocaustcontroversies team never rebutted the video "Buchenwald" eventhough it's been out for years. Why? And what is your opinion of this video or of any episode it?

[Arus808]

I basically asked if anyone here wanted to take a look at some videos that promote holocaust denial and give their opinion on those videos.

and I'll give you my answer, which is abundantly clear:
Any Holocaust Denial video that claims that the Holocaust did not happen, or examines specific witnesses, victims, or the like and says they are liars are videos that are dishonest and outright lying.

As pointed out, NONE of your claims are new and many sites have been provided to you to examine. YET you do nothing.

[Chaos]

I basically asked if anyone here wanted to take a look at some videos that promote holocaust denial and give their opinion on those videos. Not on holocaust denial in general which makes the topic too broad, but their opinion on those videos which they looked at. We're on page 2 of the thread and just one person has done it.

Some people were upset by my parameters. Parameters are always laid out in the initial post, but I just made them very clear since it's hard to get people to focus on certain elements of the holocaust. If I said "I want to discuss the book of Genesis" would Arus808 be upset and tell me that I don't make the rules here and bring up the book of Matthew and have a general discussion about the bible?

I'll tell you what: watch 1 or more episodes of the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found at holocaust denial videos dot com (I can't post links as a new member) and afterward, go to holocaustcontroversies dot blogspot dot com and find the rebuttal to that episode, and read that. Afterward, come back here and write your own opinion of the video. Is that too outrageous to ask?

Special request to Nick Terry: the holocaustcontroversies team never rebutted the video "Buchenwald" eventhough it's been out for years. Why? And what is your opinion of this video or of any episode it?

No, I´ll tell you what: answer the questions people have asked you in this thread. That would at least go a long way towards convincing us your are actually interested in a discussion.

[Budly]

Holocaust Denial Videos (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com)

Video: One Third of the Holocaust (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/one_third_of_the_holocaust.html)

Rebuttals at HolocaustControversies (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv)

Watch the video, read a rebuttal and then come here and post your own opinion about a specific video. Hi Arus808: you said you'd do it. Second post of this thread. Meanwhile A.W. Smith likely never watched a single video but wrote that he agreed with the rebuttals. LOL.

[Lonewulf]

I'll tell you what: watch 1 or more episodes of the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found at holocaust denial videos dot com (I can't post links as a new member) and afterward, go to holocaustcontroversies dot blogspot dot com and find the rebuttal to that episode, and read that. Afterward, come back here and write your own opinion of the video. Is that too outrageous to ask?

And how would I recompensed for the 10 minutes I waste doing so?

[The Platypus]

It's pretty obvious that Budly is hoping there is someone here that is dumb and gullible enough that when they watch his nonsense videos, and play his little game they will be so convinced and pigeon holed into thinking, "OMG it really didn't happen" and then join the cult of joo obsessed nazi wannabes.

He's fishing for fresh fish...

[Arus808]

[spam links removed]

Hi Arus808: you said you'd do it.

No I didn't. My first post in this thread stated nothing of the sort.

I already gave you an answer: Any holocaust denial video that claims that the Holocaust did not happen or call the witnesses and victims liars are to be wholly ignored.

[Questioninggeller]

I basically asked if anyone here wanted to take a look at some videos that promote holocaust denial and give their opinion on those videos. Not on holocaust denial in general which makes the topic too broad. We're on page 2 of the thread and just one person has done it.

Some people were upset by my parameters. Parameters are always laid out in the initial post, but I just made them very clear since it's hard to get people to focus on certain elements of the holocaust. If I said "I want to discuss the book of Genesis" would Arus808 be upset and tell me that I don't make the rules here and bring up the book of Matthew and have a general discussion about the bible?

I'll tell you what: watch 1 or more episodes of the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found at holocaust denial videos dot com (I can't post links as a new member) and afterward, go to holocaustcontroversies dot blogspot dot com and find the rebuttal to that episode, and read that. Afterward, come back here and write your own opinion of the video. Is that too outrageous to ask?

Special request to Nick Terry: the holocaustcontroversies team never rebutted the video "Buchenwald" eventhough it's been out for years. Why? And what is your opinion of this video or of any episode it?

I'll quote myself since you have twice ignored my questions when I'm trying to discuss your specific video:

So you just denied that it's your video even though its the same voice over as the rest of holocaustdenialvideos.com's videos?

I hope you aren't denying that Budly, youtube.com/denierbud (http://www.youtube.com/denierbud), holocaustdenialvideos.com (http://holocaustdenialvideos.com/rebuttals.html) are the same person.



So you are willing to pick and choose what to include based on what? You are going to accept the Holocaust Museum as a source when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

That is not intellectually honest. In fact, it shows you are not "open" to other "views" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5015734&postcount=1).

I must ask what source/reason you have for dismissing what you called a "valid source" (Pressac's book) specifically mentioned in the video:

http://holocaustdenialvideos.com/donahue_b.html

Again, we are playing by your "guidelines" to "discuss a specific episode of a specific video."

[FreshHat]

I am a holocaust denier

Hi Budly :You broke the bounds of credibility.

bye bye !

[dudalb]

Is someone planning for this thread to go on for a while?



Note the tags....

Hell, I am just waiting for the inevitable to happen, and the Jew Bashing to begin

[Budly]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

I already stated that I don't want to discuss my identity. And the allegation of "cherry-picking from Pressac's book: the subject was cans of Zyklon B. Pressac's book said something about that. Should the video have just stopped looking at the Phil Donohue episode and discussed everything in Pressac's book?

Hi Dudalb: That's sort of breaking Guideline #2 as I put forth in my initial post. I don't want any Jew bashing to begin which is why I put parameters on the discussion. Nor do I want this to be a discussion about "discussing Jew baiting." What I asked is very clear and reasonable. Why can't you do it?

I've given links to the videos. A link to the rebuttals. If people are afraid of exposing themselves to this information, or not interested, or not open to it, or feel it must be too outrageously at odds with reality, why bother posting to this thread?

People here think the videos are evil and hateful, and want to warn people not to view them, though they haven't seen them themselves. And the simple request remains: watch some episodes, read rebuttals, give your own opinion.

[Pantaz]

... Any holocaust denial video that claims that the Holocaust did not happen or call the witnesses and victims liars are to be wholly ignored.

I'll second that.

[Nick Terry]

I already stated that I don't want to discuss my identity

People are asking you whether you are the maker of the videos, who is known only as 'denierbud', so this isn't a discussion of your personal identity.

It is however a pertinent question, since let's say you are not in fact denierbud, and are merely visiting JREF to promote the great denierbud's three-year old videos. That makes you a bit sad, really, since it's now well established that "watch these videos! and let's discuss them!" is CT-speak for "I am totally incapable of formulating any kind of argument myself, and I hereby delegate it to another incoherent loon who is marginally higher up the evolutionary ladder than myself".

On the other hand, let's say you are denierbud, then that means you are acting disingenously and dishonestly, and also displaying a bit of an ego. Instead of coming onto JREF and saying 'let's discuss Treblinka! I think it wasn't a death camp!', you're effectively coming here and saying 'let's discuss meeee! watch my videos!"

Either way, it's rather pathetic.

[Budly]

Hi Nick Terry,

I prefer to talk about ideas and opinions than identities. The videos speak for themselves. It's not a "bit sad" or "acting disingenously and dishonestly" or any other put downs you mentioned, to ask people to view videos, read rebuttals, and give their own opinion. If I saw a video showing Uri Geller bending spoons, and asked people's opinion on it here, I wouldn't be getting the hard time which I'm getting from people like you. Yet it's the same thing, different subject.

And you ignored my questions to you. Are you going to answer this time?:
Special request to Nick Terry: the holocaustcontroversies team never rebutted the video "Buchenwald" eventhough it's been out for years. Why? And what is your opinion of this video or of any episode it?

[Horatius]

Budly: People have linked to a site run by people far more educated in the Holocaust than most of the people here. This site has presented arguments against the videos. Why do you imagine random people on the JREF will come to some other, more correct (in your view) opinion on these videos?

These videos have already been found wanting by those with standing in this historical field. What can you say to motivate me to spend the time needed to watch them, when it's clear I don't have access to more or better information than what they have already presented?

To me, it looks like you're just trolling for hits to your website, and I'm disinclined to assist an admitted denier in that manner.

[Chaos]

Hi Nick Terry,

I prefer to talk about ideas and opinions than identities. The videos speak for themselves.

Oh, yes, they do indeed. They say "I am a disgusting anti-semitic Nazi worshipper, and I think you´re too stupid to tie your own shoes, because if I didn´t, I´d have taken the time to come up with better bogus claims".

[Nick Terry]

Hi Nick Terry,

I prefer to talk about ideas and opinions than identities. The videos speak for themselves. It's not a "bit sad" or "acting disingenously and dishonestly" or any other put downs you mentioned, to ask people to view videos, read rebuttals, and give their own opinion. If I saw a video showing Uri Geller bending spoons, and asked people's opinion on it here, I wouldn't be getting the hard time which I'm getting from people like you. Yet it's the same thing, different subject.


No, the SUBJECT is the Holocaust, specifically in the case of those videos, the Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka camps. Those videos are NOT the subject, yet you persist on peddling them as if they are somehow a worthy starting point for discussion.

They are not. The facts are easily available, as are textual attempts to negate the facts. This is a somewhat more advanced site than YouTube comments threads.

So, let's start over shall we?

Apparently, you do not believe that Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka functioned as extermination camps to kill well over 1 million Jews as part of the Nazi 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question', now usually called the Holocaust. On what basis do you justify your belief that this was not so?

Please respond without a) telling us to "watch the videos", b) telling us to "read this book" or c) trying to reverse burden of proof. Use your own words.

[Mondial]

Hi Budly, Thanks for your post. I took the time to look at the NAZI SHRUNKEN HEADS video at www.holocaustdenialvideos.com (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com) It's quite obvious these shrunken heads were never made in a concentration camp and are part of outdated, fake atrocity propaganda. The same goes for the "human" soap story and the "human skin" lampshade fable. In regards to the latter, it was used at the Nuremberg trials as "evidence". But afterwards the American general in charge of the US zone of occupation in Germany, Lucius Clay, had the lampshade forensically examined and it was goat hide.

[Nick Terry]

Special request to Nick Terry: the holocaustcontroversies team never rebutted the video "Buchenwald" eventhough it's been out for years. Why? And what is your opinion of this video or of any episode it?

I have no opinion on this video and have never watched it, nor do I intend ever to watch it, because I don't "do" YouTube or its equivalents. I'd say the same thing to anyone waving around any other video on any other subject. If the same thoughts cannot be put into textual form then they are not worth bothering with, is my own personal view.

As for my colleagues, I expect that after the laugh-fest that was debunking 'One Third of the Holocaust' they felt that there was not much point wasting further time on a complete jackass like denierbud.

This is amply confirmed by the blithering idiocies denierbud wrote down in the 'Stroop Report Forgery' essay, which since it was in textual form, I did bother to look at, and laughed as heartily as my colleague Roberto did (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-1.html) when he wasted probably way too many words rebutting it.

As you seem to be denierbud's earthly representative du jour, could you perhaps ask this vaunted revisionist scholar why on earth he thought that suggesting Rachel Auerbach as the 'forger' of a document that is written in note-perfect Lingua Tertii Imperii would make anyone honestly familiar with Nazi documents not roll around on the floor laughing their ass off.

One last thing on the subject of the Stroop report and denierbud, namely the incoherence it creates within revisionism. denierbud's attempt to discredit the document stands in sharp contrast to the rather dishonest use made of it by the likes of Samuel Crowell - who in common with several other revisionist 'gurus' has shamelessly quote-mined it for bits he likes.

It also stands in sharp contrast to the opinion of Carlo Mattogno, who has certainly read a great many more Nazi documents than denierbud, even if he too frequently shows himself to be clueless in how to interpret them or even to read the German language correctly.

Just sayin'.

But back to Buchenwald. Another reason for the hearty yawn is that the entire gambit is at best an argument by analogy, and in fact anyone who has looked at the Nuremberg trial transcripts will know how completely incongruous the appearence of the 'shrunken head' was in the prosecution case. It led nowhere, pointed at no one in the dock, was clearly a one off not an example of 'industrial mass murder', and was included purely because it was so freaky. Indeed, commentators on the Nuremberg Trial like Lawrence Douglas (has denierbud read The Memory of Judgement?) have pointed out that Dodd's 'alas poor Yorick' moment stopped the prosecution presentation dead in its tracks, derailing it.

The final reason for the hearty yawn is we are friends with Dr Joachim Neander of Cracow, Poland, who is working on a book dealing with the myths and realities of what I call 'soap and other accessories'. I send him tidbits from time to time, and we kibitz over these matters. Naturally, we place more faith in a professionally qualified historian like Dr Neander than denierbud's bumbling efforts.

I bet you're sorry you asked now. :eye-poppi

[Budly]

Hi Mondial,

Yes, that's true. The goat skin lampshade was displayed at Buchenwald for 45 years, and East German schoolchildren were shown it. It's still at Buchenwald but not on public display, though a curator, Harry Stein has access to it there. That lampshade isn't the lampshade in the Buchenwald video. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html) The one in the video is "just a basic lampshade" as the video states.

People offer links to rebuttal websites, but even holocaustcontroversies (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com) has never tried to rebut the video Nazi Shrunken Heads (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/nazishrunkenheads/index.html) or "Buchenwald." Yet look how many people on this forum have said that the links to rebuttals have been offered and thus there's no need for them to watch the video.

Hi Nick Terry:
Thanks for your response. But if you don't believe in videos as a communication, scholarly medium, and refuse to watch the videos at holocaustDenialVideos.com (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com), why are you bothering posting on this thread?

Hi Horatius:

Yes, there are rebuttals written by well-informed people. But that's how knowledge works: you read what they have to say, and then what someone else has to say, and form your own opinion. The site holocaustcontroversies, or NIZKOR (http://www.nizkor.org/) et al. have never rebutted the video Buchenwald. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html) They pretend it doesn't exist though it's been out for years. So your argument doesn't really work for that video. And there may be a reason those sites haven't rebutted those videos: Perhaps they can't.

[JoeyDonuts]

Question for Budly:

What do you think happened at the Wannsee Conference?

Or did it happen at all?

Addendum: You don't make the rules here. Stop getting snippy when people don't jump through your hoops. If people want to make comments that fall outside your "rules" but still fall inside the MA of this website, they will do so and there isn't a damned thing you can do about that.

[Vermonter]

And Budly, why do you believe that the Holocaust never happened? How did you arrive at this revelation?

[Budly]

Hi JoeyDonuts:

You just broke Guideline #1. Just like it's possible to discuss one book of the bible, rather than the whole bible, it's also possible to discuss specific details of the holocaust. Please see my initial post.

[Lonewulf]

When someone opens up a thread with "I believe the whole Bible is literal, no exception" and then demands to talk only about one particular gospel, it would go pretty much the same way.

Go ahead. Try it. You'll see.

[Questioninggeller]

Hi QuestioningGeller:
I already stated that I don't want to discuss my identity.

OK, but very telling...


And the allegation of "cherry-picking from Pressac's book: the subject was cans of Zyklon B. Pressac's book said something about that. Should the video have just stopped looking at the Phil Donohue episode and discussed everything in Pressac's book?


If you are really serious about having discussion about the videos then answer the question and quit changing the subject.

I didn't say cherry-picking did I? I didn't ask you to discuss everything in the book did I?

1) You say it was a "valid" source.
2) It's in the video.
3) You reject the figure (95%) in the video/source.

My question again: What reason/source do you have rejecting that figure/source?

[Budly]

Hi Lonewulf,

You have a point. But I just mentioned that I was a holocaust denier to be open with the forum about what my views were. Then I mentioned the videos. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that I was a holocaust denier, and then everyone wouldn't be trying to hijack the thread into a "if you believe the holocaust never happened then what about this?"

[Lonewulf]

Because it's rather obvious that you have ulterior motives for doing so. There are huge pieces of evidence to knock down before you can get down to the nit and gritty.

For that matter, when you have mentioned things in specific, you will notice that you have been responded to personally and also led to sites that have already dealt with what you are questioning.

[16.5]

Hi JoeyDonuts:

You just broke Guideline #1. Just like it's possible to discuss one book of the bible, rather than the whole bible, it's also possible to discuss specific details of the holocaust. Please see my initial post.

Hi Budly!

You seem to be a stickler for strict compliance with guidelines and rules of your own devising .... if only there were a shorthand way to refer to such a person on the internet...

/Hitler has only got one ball,
/Göring has two but very small,
/Himmler is somewhat sim'lar,
/But poor Goebbels has no balls at all.

[Budly]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

The point in the video is that even an acknowledged holocaust scholar says that 95 percent of the cans of Zyklon B were used for delousing. It's possible to use that and not agree with it. To paraphrase: "Even so and so says something that is very close to my view."--it's like that.

[Budly]

Hi Budly!

You seem to be a stickler for strict compliance with guidelines and rules of your own devising

You could look at it that way, but I simply requested that people look at videos and comment on them, and not bring up anything that came to their mind about proof of the holocaust, like the Wannsee conference, because the videos don't deal with the Wannsee conference.

[16.5]

You could look at it that way, but I simply requested that people look at videos and comment on them, and not bring up anything that came to their mind about proof of the holocaust, like the Wannsee conference, because the videos don't deal with the Wannsee conference.

Well, you know who else used to be a real stickler for strict compliance with guidelines and rules of his own devising?

[Questioninggeller]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

The point in the video is that even an acknowledged holocaust scholar says that 95 percent of the cans of Zyklon B were used for delousing. It's possible to use that and not agree with it. To paraphrase: "Even so and so says something that is very close to my view."--it's like that.

So you're not going to answer the question why you deny that figure (despite saying its "valid" and it being cited in your video)? You're just going to give red herrings even though I'm the only one talking about these videos.

Minor point:
As I already pointed to you, he is not a "Holocaust scholar" and even you admit you don't know his background. His book isn't widely circulated and it's unknown if scholars (you know, historians) accept these figures. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

[beachnut]

I am a holocaust denier, but open to your view.

...
You prefer lies and not skeptical critical thinking when you adopt the dirt dumb holocaust denier mentality. Why would you post at place with the exact opposite of your method of thinking?

It takes willful ignorance to push holocaust denial.

You broke rule one, don't believe in dirt dumb ideas promoted by moron neoNAZIs.

Pick your favorite delusion or lie from the videos and defend it in a post. You are wrong and if you research the subject you will see you promote a moronic lie. The funny part is you are open to what? Pushing your failed videos?

What a bunch of pathetic videos? The web page tells how no one will debunk his NAZI junk ideas. There is no need to debunk pure delusions. Where did all the people the NAZIs did not kill go in your denial delusion?

My dad was in the 101st; you are debunked by my father and now you are a NAZI apologist unable to express the points you think are correct in your failed denial videos. Where did all the dead people go? Were they worked to death in the work camps? 6 million worked to death? Was some of the work testing gas chambers? You are sick.

[Nick Terry]

Hi Nick Terry:
Thanks for your response. But if you don't believe in videos as a communication, scholarly medium, and refuse to watch the videos at holocaustDenialVideos.com (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com), why are you bothering posting on this thread?


Once again you are confusing the videos with the subject matter. I and no doubt others are probably quite happy to discuss the subject matter - I made just such an invitation in a post above - but for some reason you seem to want to drag things back to the videos. I'm beginning to think that you are in fact incapable of arguing the subject in a live arena, which is what internet forums are supposedly about.

So if that's the case, me bothering to post in this thread has helped expose this. The longer you go on bleating about the videos and avoiding discussing the subject, the better.

I might also add that your apparent inability to discuss the subject of BST is of-a-piece with the apparent inability of the entire revisionist community to organise a formal debate team to take on the precise subject of those videos.


Hi Horatius:
Yes, there are rebuttals written by well-informed people. But that's how knowledge works: you read what they have to say, and then what someone else has to say, and form your own opinion. The site holocaustcontroversies, or NIZKOR (http://www.nizkor.org/) et al. have never rebutted the video Buchenwald. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html) They pretend it doesn't exist though it's been out for years. So your argument doesn't really work for that video. And there may be a reason those sites haven't rebutted those videos: Perhaps they can't.


Perhaps they can't be bothered, is the reason already given. But maybe if the earthly representative of denierbud can express the gist of the argument in his own words, then the JREF forum could discuss these ideas.

Hi Mondial,

Yes, that's true. The goat skin lampshade was displayed at Buchenwald for 45 years, and East German schoolchildren were shown it. It's still at Buchenwald but not on public display, though a curator, Harry Stein has access to it there. That lampshade isn't the lampshade in the Buchenwald video. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html) The one in the video is "just a basic lampshade" as the video states.

People offer links to rebuttal websites, but even holocaustcontroversies (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/) has never tried to rebut the video Nazi Shrunken Heads (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/nazishrunkenheads/index.html) or "Buchenwald." Yet look how many people on this forum have said that the links to rebuttals have been offered and thus there's no need for them to watch the video.

Try using your own words. I don't see what's so hard about grasping this simple concept, especially on a skeptic's forum.

[Nick Terry]

So you're not going to answer the question why you deny that figure (despite saying its "valid" and it being cited in your video)? You're just going to give red herrings even though I'm the only one talking about these videos.

Minor point:
As I already pointed to you, he is not a "Holocaust scholar" and even you admit you don't know his background. His book isn't widely circulated and it's unknown if scholars (you know, historians) accept these figures. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

Many of Pressac's arguments are widely accepted by historians of Auschwitz, but the 95% of Zyklon being used for delousing claim is not one of them, smacks of rhetorical hyperbole, and was not accompanied by a detailed demonstration of his reasoning. Van Pelt demonstrated more probable percentages in his affidavit for the Irving appeal, online over at THHP.

[gtc]

If I saw a video showing Uri Geller bending spoons, and asked people's opinion on it here, I wouldn't be getting the hard time which I'm getting from people like you. Yet it's the same thing, different subject.

You don't see anything different between a claim that Uri Geller can bend spoons and a claim that the Holocaust never happened?


Why don't you make a specific claim that can be addressed. Why not list out point by point what you believe and what evidence you have.

[Questioninggeller]

Many of Pressac's arguments are widely accepted by historians of Auschwitz, but the 95% of Zyklon being used for delousing claim is not one of them, smacks of rhetorical hyperbole, and was not accompanied by a detailed demonstration of his reasoning. Van Pelt demonstrated more probable percentages in his affidavit for the Irving appeal, online over at THHP.

I told Budly (in post #32 of this thread) to read Robert Jan van Pelt's book The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial.

But I am interested in why Budly cites something while he rejects it. I want to know what evidence he has to reject it while saying its a "valid" source.

[Nick Terry]

I told Budly (in post #32 of this thread) to read Robert Jan van Pelt's book The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial.


He doesn't even have to make any money for Indiana University Press, he can read Pelt's trial report online as well as the appeals report. Strangely, few Holocaust deniers ever appear to have done either.

But I am interested in why Budly cites something while he rejects it. I want to know what evidence he has to reject it while saying its a "valid" source.

That is the $64,000 question, and if you can get an answer, then students of CT logic will appreciate learning the findings, since the exact mechanism by which a CT decontextualises information is still something of a mystery.

[Horatius]

Hi Horatius:

Yes, there are rebuttals written by well-informed people. But that's how knowledge works: you read what they have to say, and then what someone else has to say, and form your own opinion. The site holocaustcontroversies, or NIZKOR (http://www.nizkor.org/) et al. have never rebutted the video Buchenwald. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html) They pretend it doesn't exist though it's been out for years. So your argument doesn't really work for that video. And there may be a reason those sites haven't rebutted those videos: Perhaps they can't.


But there's also the doctrine of "Consider the Source" to consider. As Nick Terry, in his above (Nominated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5020000#post5020000), btw) post shows, no other work presented by this person has any merit. Why would you have me suppose that, contrary to all previous attempts, this time he finally got it right?

You're the one trying to get me to spend some of my all-to-rare free time watching this video, instead of making NWO Kitty comics, drinking beer, playing with my kitten, or masturbating. What exactly motivates me to choose the video? You're asking me to give you my time, I'm asking you to give me a reason.

[Horatius]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

The point in the video is that even an acknowledged holocaust scholar says that 95 percent of the cans of Zyklon B were used for delousing. It's possible to use that and not agree with it. To paraphrase: "Even so and so says something that is very close to my view."--it's like that.



I think you miss the point QuestioningGeller is trying to make.

If you believe, as you do, that this number is in error, why do you assume the error is that the number is too low, rather than too high? If his information is faulty, either case is just as likely. Why do you insist on the interpretation that supports your beliefs? To support such an interpretation, you would have to have some other source for the "95%-100%" position. If you had such a source, you could simply use it, rather than the source you acknowledge is not reliable.

That you cannot show such a second source indicates that your belief is unsupported, which tells us that it is a matter of faith to you, rather than scholarship.

Which will surprise no one but you, I expect.

[gtc]

Every single one of those videos has been debunked here (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv) at Holocaust Controversies.

There is a huge amount of material on the videos we have been asked to watch at this site linked to by Nick Terry. The site even links to the videos themselves so that people can make their own minds up.

Unless budly can list some specific point from his video that hasn't been debunked yet or where he disagrees with the rebuttal then I don't see that there is a point to this thread.

It just seems like someone repeatedly (and dishonestly) spruiking their own videos in the vain hope that we won't link to the same rebuttals that others have already made.

[Foolmewunz]

Did you guys work this out in the tree fort ahead of time?

Deniers love the lampshades, soap, and shrunken heads. They're almost as fond of them as Elie Wiesel's confabulation. Why?

Well, in the face of tons (literally) of documents and evidence, if they can pick out one little inconsistency here and another over there, they feel it's enough to bring the whole "house of cards" tumbling down.

If this sounds familiar, it's because we spend a lot of time looking at similar tactics from MoonBats, 911 CTers, JFK 'droids, etc... "Ignore the 10,000 pages of that inconvenient report, look at this video!"

Budly, as Nick mentioned, no one with any knowledge of the Holocaust gives any credibility to the lampshade or shrunken heads. It's been proved to be the product of any over-active imagination and long since conceded to be incorrect. So that disproves, to you, that Buchenwald was an extermination camp? Well, guess what... knowledgeable people already know that it wasn't an extermination camp, technically.

Is that your gambit?

And, no, ... I'm not viewing your videos. I don't have the time for them and as Nick and others have pointed out, we have our own de facto rules around here. Chief-most is our own Rule 1 - You Make the Claim - You Bring the Proof. You have made no claim. You just keep plugging away at promoting your videos. We're not really fond of videos as evidence, so if you are incapable of positing some of your evidence in words, prepare for continuation of your initial reception.

So, I'll reword the question for you..... What is it (in words... remember them?) that you think you've discovered about Buchenwald that disproves the Holocaust?

[dudalb]

Looks as if both MaGZ and Mondial are angry that that Johnny Come Lately Holocaust Denier, 9/11 Investigator, is getting all the attention.

[Nick Terry]

But there's also the doctrine of "Consider the Source" to consider. As Nick Terry, in his above (Nominated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5020000#post5020000), btw) post shows, no other work presented by this person has any merit.


aww :blush:

From your nom-post

The best part is, since budly has refused to admit he's denierbud, he can't even complain to the mods about being insulted.

:D

[The Platypus]

Doesn't look like the fish are biting Budly. Not surprising considering the bait you are trying is terrible...

[dudalb]

Really. Budly has got to come up with a better lure then the one he is using.
Imposing arbritary rules really don't cut it around here.

[Thunder]

Budly- all census data from from before and after WW2 shows a loss of at least 5 million Jews. how do you explain that?

did the evil Jews......bribe all the world census people????

ooooooohh!!!!!

there were almost 18 million Jews...in 1929...and today there are less then 14 million. more then 60 years after WW2.

explain that.

[Horatius]

aww :blush:

From your nom-post

The best part is, since budly has refused to admit he's denierbud, he can't even complain to the mods about being insulted.

:D



What can I say? I love a good bit of Rules Lawyering!

;)

[JimBenArm]

I watched the videos. All of them. I'm now a full-blown holocaust denier. I'm also a believer in Bigfoot, UFOs, we never went to the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, JFK was shot by George Bush, and that Yuri Geller can fix my watch with his mind!

In other words, my brain fell out. Can you help me put it back? Please?

[Horatius]

did the evil Jews......bribe all the world census people????





You've almost got it right....



ooooooohh!!!!!

there were almost 18 million Jews...in 1929...and today there are less then 14 million. more then 60 years after WW2.

explain that.


Well, since everyone knows Jewish women are completely frigid, and never have sex, it's clear that the Joooos were bribing the census takers prior to WWII, in order to inflate their numbers! After WWII, being so cheap, they realized they could stop bribing them, and the lower number would look like they had been victims of some sort of "Holocaust".

You see, they're really quite clever Cheap Joooos.

[Thunder]

You've almost got it right....
Well, since everyone knows Jewish women are completely frigid, and never have sex, it's clear that the Joooos were bribing the census takers prior to WWII, in order to inflate their numbers! After WWII, being so cheap, they realized they could stop bribing them, and the lower number would look like they had been victims of some sort of "Holocaust".

You see, they're really quite clever Cheap Joooos.

well, 9-11 Investigator says that the Nazis accept the post-WW2 Jewish world population figures...but not the pre ones. they think there was some sorta funny business...but they can't prove it.

they say, how could the Jewish population increase sooo rapidly from 1900 to 1938...but then so slowly from 1945-2009?

then I pointed out to him that a annual pop. growth rate of 3% was not uncommon, and was identical to the Palestinians in the same time period.

why did the Jews stop making babies after WW2? cause were were in shock, inter-marriage jumped dramatically, jewish families were having much fewer kids, and other reasons.

but no...it can't be....there must be a Joo conspiracy somewhere!!

arrggghhh!!! mein kopf!!!

[Horatius]

well, 9-11 Investigator says that the Nazis accept the post-WW2 Jewish world population figures...but not the pre ones. they think there was some sorta funny business...but they can't prove it.

they say, how could the Jewish population increase sooo rapidly from 1900 to 1938...but then so slowly from 1945-2009?

then I pointed out to him that a annual pop. growth rate of 3% was not uncommon, and was identical to the Palestinians in the same time period.

why did the Jews stop making babies after WW2? cause were were in shock, inter-marriage jumped dramatically, jewish families were having much fewer kids, and other reasons.

but no...it can't be....there must be a Joo conspiracy somewhere!!

arrggghhh!!! mein kopf!!!



And once again, it turns out I can't make up a CT so stupid, that they haven't beat me to it yet.


Sigh.

[woolfe99]

"Denierbud" has refused to debate the HC bloggers who demolished his propaganda video point-by-point, for more than two years now.

He posts over at the CODOH forum as Carto's Cutlass Supreme, where non-deniers are lucky to get 1 in 2 posts up that are not deleted by the moderator there, and few can persist unbanned for very long. There is no debate at all on that forum. This is apparently the only place where he chooses to ply his crankery, unless he also happens to be posting over at white supremacist websites like Stormfront and VNN.

He has repeatedly been asked to join the RODOH forum, where both sides are permitted to express their views, and has predictably failed to do so.

Recently, we over at RODOH were preparing for a lengthy, formal debate about the AR camps with a denier team (all but two of whose members were unknown to us). We are now told that so many members of the denial team have dropped that the remaining members cannot proceed. The point of a formal debate was to avoid the negationist method of taking individual pieces of evidence out of context so that they can sidestep the convergent and interlocking nature of the entire body of evidence. The deniers obviously cannot win , or even avoid total humiliation, in a format where proper historical methodology is employed, and they clearly know this.

Denierbud, being the resident internet crank with the most knowledge of AR, was undoubtedly asked to join that team. Either he refused to participate or joined the team and then was one of those who bailed out, for reasons undisclosed to us. We believe that the appearance of "budly" on this board right at this time is not a coincidence. It seems that "denierbud" may be feeling insecure at the moment, like he needs to prove to himself that he is actually capable of debating an opposing view after years of spewing his garbage on the internet unanswered. So he chooses a forum where he (mistakenly) believes that the level of historical knowledge is low enough that he can prevail in a debate.

Cowardice is a common thread running from the Nazis themselves, who murdered unarmed, defenseless civilians (Jews and non-Jews), to their present day proponents and apologists, who cannot muster the backbone to face up to real opposition.

So Denierbud, remember what your mommy undoubtedly told you: the only way to deal with your fears is to face them. And when you're done cleaning out your underwear over the prospect of real debate, please come over to RODOH and engage us on the issues that you have been spouting off about for years, and preferrably, please offer your assistance to the now failing denier formal debate team, that has been forced into humiliating withdrawal.

Unless or until you prove yourself willing and able to debate professional historians and knowledgeable amateurs, you deserve nothing but mocking scorn anywhere you choose to post outside the the warm and comforting confines of your chosen censorious venue. So man up, and prove that anything you say on this subject is worth even a passing glance, by demonstrating your conviction that it can withstand the critical scrutiny of those not of a like mind.

- Woolfe

[Foolmewunz]

One post in 17 months? Something about the arrival of denialist miscreants that brings good lurkers out of lurkerdom.

Welcome(?), Woolfe!

[Horatius]

Good on ye, Woolfe! I love a good smackdown.

[woolfe99]

One post in 17 months? Something about the arrival of denialist miscreants that brings good lurkers out of lurkerdom.

Welcome(?), Woolfe!

It's true. I had almost forgotten that I joined here quite awhile back with the intention of getting into discussion of several topics. But alas I have been on a two year RODOH tangent, and have not focused on other discussion fora.

Besides, I figured that you guys had the "truthers" pretty well pegged, so my services would be more useful elsewhere. :D

Thanks for the welcome.

- woolfe

[JoeyDonuts]

An Ode To This Bud Character.

So...he only wants to discuss certain elements of the Holocaust story, and won't entertain discussion of them in context of the event at large. Ok.

He wants us to push traffic TO his website, and seems unable to even offer up a meaningful summary that would give us a legitimate reason for watching his videos and investigating his claims.

The proof is not in your videos. You can't debate it here and now, without preconditions, you are approaching this dishonestly, reeking of fraud and spam.

Can you summarize for us, what your claims of contention are with the Holocaust record? I'm with Horatius here - I don't want to give you a single hit's worth of internet traffic unless I can be convinced of the possibility of you being "onto something."

But then again, you appear to be from the Ashida Kim school of Internet debate, so I don't expect anything out of you but more of the same. I'd bet a double sawbuck that within the diseased, rotten, sad core of your arguments lies a festering, putrid center of thinly veiled white nationalism masquerading as legitimate scholarly research. I think guys like you are just angry you were born about fifty years too late and on the wrong continent.

Guess what? You're fringe for a reason, and it ain't because the PTB have chosen to oppress the righteous little white-pride "researchers." It's because you have no basis whatsoever but hate. Call it what you want, but that's where it comes from no matter how you want to 'spin it.' I pity you more than anything else - you're a dying species. History and evolution do not favor racial purity and the ideas that come along with it. You're obsolete.

[Budly]

Hi Foolmewunz:

You wrote, You Make the Claim - You Bring the Proof.

O.K: Yankel Weirnik is a fraudulent Treblinka eyewitness, as is described in episode 1 of the video "One Third of the Holocaust." (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/one_third_of_the_holocaust.html) You'd have to watch that episode to respond. I'd suggest looking at holocaustcontroversies afterward, for a contrary opinion. Then offer your opinion here.

Also you wrote Deniers love the lampshades, soap, and shrunken heads. They're almost as fond of them as Elie Wiesel's confabulation. Why?

Deniers aren't the only people who mention lampshades and shrunken heads. The Academy Award winning movie Judgement At Nuremberg mentioned (and showed) lampshades and shrunken heads, and that movie came out 17 years after the war.

Foolmewunz wrote regarding the lampshades and shrunken heads:

It's been proved to be the product of any over-active imagination and long since conceded to be incorrect.

An "overactive imagination" is inadequate to explain those objects. A Psyche Warfare operation is a better explanation, and were you to watch the video Buchenwald (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html), you'd know about that Psyche Warfare operation.

[Budly]

One post in 17 months? Something about the arrival of denialist miscreants that brings good lurkers out of lurkerdom.

Welcome(?), Woolfe!

That or he is perhaps a member of dozens of forums and is perhaps paid to do this, which is why he has all the good smack down comments like "man up" etc. And shows up within a day or so of a holocaust denial post.

[Budly]

I'm not going to respond to put downs, identity speculators, or people who repeatedly post (on a thread about videos) why they will not watch the videos.

I will respond to people who take a look at some of the videos at Holocaust Denial Videos (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/) and have some thoughts to share regarding the spefic videos that they saw.

Obviously a lot of people here don't want you to look at those videos.

[Horatius]

That or he is perhaps a member of dozens of forums and is perhaps paid to do this, which is why he has all the good smack down comments like "man up" etc. And shows up within a day or so of a holocaust denial post.


Wow. Paranoid much?


I'm not going to respond to put downs, identity speculators, or people who repeatedly post (on a thread about videos) why they will not watch the videos.

I will respond to people who take a look at some of the videos at Holocaust Denial Videos (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/) and have some thoughts to share regarding the spefic videos that they saw.

Obviously a lot of people here don't want you to look at those videos.



So, you explicitly refuse to give me a reason to watch your videos, rather than do some other thing. Well then, I'm off to


play with the kitten.

What were you expecting? Perverts!

ETA: She's got a mouse! Now she doesn't want to come back in the house!




Have fun living your life with no impact on anything important, at all.

[Foolmewunz]

Budly, I can't watch your videos from my office (see below), and I don't have the time to do so at home as I'm busy raising that little half-breed you see in my avatar.

Ergo, if you can't - like a real scholar or historian - put your claims into words, then you're not going to get much in the way of discussion.

Forbidden!

You have requested access to a website or content currently restricted.

CATEGORY:Hate and Discrimination

When, however, you do put something into words, we'll respond.

Specifically - the point about the film Judgment at Nuremberg... Yep! You sure caught me, there. Oh, wait... but I already said that it was the product of imaginative interpretation. And it wasn't original to the script of the movie, and you know it. The film did come out, however, before much research had been done into those particular claims - and that you also know.

History is funny like that. People write things up from contemporary reports and unless those reports are challenged by evidence, they tend to hang around and become part of the public mythos. When properly challenged, however, serious scholars and historians readily admit that the initial information was wrong. You'll note that Nick had no problem dismissing them as false claims. Nor do I.

So what's your point in belaboring the issue? Psych(e)ological warfare? Yep. After the war was over? Or do you think you're still fighting that war?

[woolfe99]

One post in 17 months? Something about the arrival of denialist miscreants that brings good lurkers out of lurkerdom.

Welcome(?), Woolfe!

That or he is perhaps a member of dozens of forums and is perhaps paid to do this, which is why he has all the good smack down comments like "man up" etc. And shows up within a day or so of a holocaust denial post.

Another classic internet denier meme: that those who oppose their views are paid by ZoG or some other such shadowy entity, because they consider themselves important enough to warrant being the focus of a world conspiracy.

What a scream.

- woolfe

[woolfe99]

I'm not going to respond to put downs, identity speculators, or people who repeatedly post (on a thread about videos) why they will not watch the videos.

I will respond to people who take a look at some of the videos at [link] and have some thoughts to share regarding the spefic videos that they saw.

Obviously a lot of people here don't want you to look at those videos.

What business do you have controlling the precise terms of a discussion about a historical topic?

But if you want to discuss the videos, fine. Why don't you reply to the now 2 year old refutations of those videos that are already online? I fail to see the point of raising the topic anew until those points have been addressed.

- woolfe

[Budly]

Hi Foolmewunz,

Well at least you tried to take a look at your office. I applaud you for that, but censorship under the rubric of "hate" is a major strength of the myth, and it kept you from watching. But that's not your fault.

You wrote:Specifically - the point about the film Judgment at Nuremberg... Yep! You sure caught me, there. Oh, wait... but I already said that it was the product of imaginative interpretation. And it wasn't original to the script of the movie, and you know it.
You don't know what you're talking about. A shrunken head was shown in the movie Judgement at Nuremberg because a shrunken head was shown in the actual Nuremberg courtroom.

Hi Woolfe99

Here's something I prefer: why don't you watch an episode of a video at holocaust denial videos, (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com) which has never been rebutted over at the HolocaustControversies blogspot and then offer your view here. How about the video Buchenwald (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html) and the assertion that the lamphade and shrunken heads are there as part of a Psyche Warfare operation to denazify the German population, but the info "blew back" into American media. Foolmewunz is also maybe going to watch it. There is no information about it at holocaustcontroversies, and Nick Terry claims he's never watched it nor will he. So maybe you can watch it and offer your independent opinion here.

[Arus808]

can we not link to your site, because its obvious you're spamming. And as woolfe has stated, your VIdeos are not new. We've already pointed to sites that already debunk the claims in yoru videos. So why dont you ADDRESS those critiques.

As it is, you're trying make us beat a dead horse

[Budly]

Hi Arus808,

You're right: if a video has been debunked by a blogspot website, there's no need for you to watch it.

And you're right: I should write a rebuttal to a rebuttal of a video you're never going to watch. And post it here so that you can read it and totally understand it.

[Arus808]

having read the rebuttals, i do not need to watch your videos to know that they are nothing more than your attempt a trying to pass of horrible lies about the Holocaust.


You chastise a blog for making a rebuttal against your tripe and lies, yet you want to get the opinions of members of a FORUM?


And dont act like this is anything new on your part, denierbud, since its obvious that you've been spamming this tripe to many forums (and expect ONLY forum members to rebut) but when a Website, a blog decides to handle your 3 year old arguments, you ignore them simply on the basis because its a "blog".

Yet, you want FORUM members offer rebuttals



If you can't see anything wrong with that thinking, then you are seriously mentally ill.

[Crazytimes]

That or he is perhaps a member of dozens of forums and is perhaps paid to do this, which is why he has all the good smack down comments like "man up" etc. And shows up within a day or so of a holocaust denial post.

Do they make straight jackets in any color other than white ? This is one of the most insane things I have ever heard.

[Foolmewunz]

Hi Foolmewunz,

Well at least you tried to take a look at your office. I applaud you for that, but censorship under the rubric of "hate" is a major strength of the myth, and it kept you from watching. But that's not your fault.

Yeah, silly Germans I work for. They seem to think this kind of stuff is repulsive. Go figure.



You wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about. A shrunken head was shown in the movie Judgement at Nuremberg because a shrunken head was shown in the actual Nuremberg courtroom.

<snip>



Do you have trouble reading? (We know you don't want to put things into words, so maybe that's not a facetious question.)

Did you miss where I said, "And it wasn't original to the script of the movie, and you know it."

My question, perhaps too subtle, was why you brought up the film when the film was merely aping what had happened in the trials where the shrunken head diversion had taken place.
So just what in the hell are you arguing with?

Did you also miss where Nick went into considerable detail about that portion of the trial? Are you so accustomed to preaching to the choir that you think you're dealing with people who can't read or write, either? I suggest you read whole sentences and paragraphs, as you'll find that quite often they are linked and contain a whole thought.

And you might stop trying to win points when people are agreeing with some element of what you're saying.

Nick and I both said that the issues were false. I even went farther to use them as an example of how bad information, like water, generally finds its level and is weeded out if actual historians and scholars go at it.

[Budly]

Hi Arus808 and Foolmewunz,

Maybe it's just me but I tend to understand rebuttals better if I've seen/read the work that the rebuttal is referring to.

But posting liberally to a thread about videos which you haven't watched is maybe indicative of how someone gets to 4,000+ or 8,000+ postings here.

[Arus808]

I dont know what problem you have understanding here denierbud, but the VIDEOS have already been addressed on other sites, especially at this blog:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv

You fail to undesrtand that WE do not need to watch your videos to give a rebuttal, when all the work has already been done already:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv


When you refuse to address what others have already done for us, then it makes us assume that you are not here for discussion, but to stir the pot.


Your tactics are not new, as more experienced and less obvious holocaust deniers before you have tried and failed everytime.


Please address every point as listed here:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv

since you want rebuttals, we will start with the claims as pointed on :

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv


Again, we dont like beating a dead horse; if a rebuttal to your videos have been made, we start there.

So, http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv -- care to start with the first rebuttal?

[Foolmewunz]

Budly,



And..... as for me.... (I made my mind up back in Chelsea....)



I told you already - I will (between visits, meetings, conference calls and the like) discuss anything that suits my fancy if you care to post it. You young whippersnappers seem to have forgotten what the written word is. (Why when I was your age we didn't have no intertubes; we had to send our emails by carrier pigeon! Now get off my lawn.)

Did your videos have a script? A story board? Post them. Surely they're not just pretty pictures and groovy soundtracks and there are some actual claims made. Why is it so difficult for you to state one of your significant arguments in the form of a hypothesis, cite your evidence, and we go from there.

I'm beginning to suspect that the several who've mentioned it are right and you're just trolling for hits on your videos. Is there like a conspiradroid membership drive/contest going on? Couldn't you guys just sell girlscout cookies or do a car wash?

[Budly]

Hi Arus808,

You wrote,
care to start with the first rebuttal?
How do you know this is a good rebuttal if you haven't seen the video episode it rebuts?

[Arus808]

Basically its called trust.

When you claim yourself to be a holocaust denier, you've essentially stated that no one should trust what you say, because you believe that the holocaust as accepted by reputable historians and scholars around the world, and Rational people, didn't happen.


Until you can back your claims with absolute proof (ie EVIDENCE), nothing you say will make me want to watch your videos. I'll trust what OTHER people have to say about your videos

I am not fluent on the Holocaust; and Im only 'related' to the event, based on my, very distant relatives that lost their lives during Holocaust, but that pretty much ends my ties to it. So anything I say wont be helpful to the conversation, which is why I trust the claims and writings of those who are more knowledgeable about history of the Holocaust. I've only read Nizkor since that was what introduced me to the world of Holocaust Denial (I at the time thought people would have to clearly clinically insane to believe that it didn't happen). I never realized how hated the jews were, until I read that website. But, Im not able to recite every instance of the Holocaust, because Im not an historian, nor do I get involved in Holocaust Denial debates where I need ot have this knowledge readily available to use.





Dont be dodging, please address every single point found here:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv

[Hokulele]

How do you know this is a good rebuttal if you haven't seen the video episode it rebuts?


The rebuttals list the claims made, and why they are incorrect. Here is an example from the first clip:

1. Bud starts out insinuating that Wiernik’s account A Year in Treblinka is very hard to come by. Amazon doesn’t offer it, and only the University of Berkeley, California happens to have a copy of the book. The impression Bud obviously tries to convey is that access to Wiernik’s account is made or kept difficult because the scholars who have used it as a source don’t want critical readers to check behind them. Actually, however, Bud could have saved himself the trouble of perusing university libraries by simply doing something known as googling. Inserting the words "Wiernik A Year in Treblinka" into a Google browser will turn up these results (http://www.google.pt/search?hl=pt-PT&q=Wiernik+A+Year+in+Treblinka+&btnG=Pesquisa+Google&meta=), and if you click the first of the links turned up by Google you reach a site featuring Wiernik’s A Year in Treblinka (http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm). The text on this site seems to be from another edition than the one that Bud found in the Berkeley library, for the wording or terminology is occasionally different from that in Bud’s Berkeley copy. Insofar as can be checked on hand of the passages Bud shows his viewers, however, these differences in wording or terminology do not change the content and meaning of the account in general and the statements that Bud takes issue with in particular, so the online version can be used for assessing the merits of Bud’s commentary. Where I should consider wording or terminology differences between the two versions worth pointing out, I will do so.

In any case, contrary to what Bud insinuates, there’s nothing obscure or secret about Wiernik’s account, which is readily available and easy to access on the web for whoever would like to read it. As video maker and YouTube member Bud is hardly the old-fashioned kind of fellow who doesn’t know how to use an internet search engine, the fuss he makes about how difficult it was to find Wiernik’s account strongly smacks of Bud’s first attempt to take his viewers for a ride. What is more, in episode 29 of the UVP video (http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/), Bud makes a fuss about the book on Treblinka by Alexander Donat, "a book respected by Holocaust historians" which is also available via Amazon – both the 1979 paperback edition (http://www.amazon.com/Death-Camp-Treblinka-Alexander-Donat/dp/0805250085/sr=8-7/qid=1159787819/ref=sr_1_7/104-3046882-6328741?ie=UTF8&s=books) and the 1988 hardcover edition (http://www.amazon.com/Death-Camp-Treblinka-Alexander-Donat/dp/0805299831/sr=8-6/qid=1159787819/ref=sr_1_6/104-3046882-6328741?ie=UTF8&s=books). Now, Donat’s book contains a reprint of Wiernik’s A Year in Treblinka. So how can Bud seriously insinuate that Wiernik’s account is some hard-to-find mystery that he had to painstakingly seek for?


Source (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html).

Do you deny that this claim is made in the clip? Do you disagree with this analysis?

[JoeyDonuts]

Obviously a lot of people here don't want you to look at those videos.

I'm not going to look at them because you haven't given me a reason that looking at them would be accomplishing more than inflating web statistics for your clearinghouse of lunacy.

If you could spell it out logically, and with external and authoritative evidence, that your claims have some merit -even outside of places like Elohim City - I might consider watching your presentation.

As it stands, the tide of history and evidence flows against you and your revisionist theories. You haven't accomplished anything here but shill for your websites and videos, which from what I've seen have been throroughly blasted apart in the past.

Is the National Holocaust Museum just another psychological operation? (By the way, your definition of PSYOPS is just as skewed and wrong as every other conspiracy-spouting internet personality out there.)

What's this hiding behind anonymity getting you anyway? If you are the one who created the videos, why not own up to it? It makes you seem cowardly and disingenuous if you don't.

I'd like to know what kind of agenda you're pushing here. Although Tom Metzger would probably think less of you if you came right out with it. Lone-wolf operations and all that. How is ol' Tom these days?

[Nick Terry]

That or he is perhaps a member of dozens of forums and is perhaps paid to do this, which is why he has all the good smack down comments like "man up" etc. And shows up within a day or so of a holocaust denial post.

The historian Martin Broszat once described Holocaust denial as an Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit, a truly elegant German phrase that translates more clumsily as 'running amok against reality'. I couldn't come up with a better illustration of the phrase than the above comment from Budly.

Actually, the reasons why woolfe99 turned up here are multiple. Pay attention now since unlike your ridiculous allegation of shilling I can prove these reasons.

For one, as can be confirmed by looking over at the Stundies nominations thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149699&page=2) here at JREF, we at RODOH have nominated one of your brethren, 'ralphgordon' who you may know better as 'comradeseinfeld' at CODOH (identical avatars, identical posting style), for a Stundie because of his logic-defying claim that the Holocaust could not have happened because Hitler was a quarter-Jewish, elaborating this claim with the reasoning that as Hitler is famous and so are many Jews, therefore it was likely that Hitler did indeed have Jewish ancestry.

For another, this thread was linked to at RODOH (http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/7279?page=-1), hardly a great conspiracy and certainly not involving 'dozens of forums', nor requiring a salaried postholder to achieve.

The final reason is because the very same day you turn up here, we were notified via private message by our erstwhile debate partners that they were inquorate, a withdrawal they announced publicly (http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/7282?page=-1) last night.

Three very good reasons why someone from RODOH might turn up here after registering so long ago, within a day of you popping up out of your gopher hole.

Given your performance against the regulars here, the people without any great knowledge of the subject, I'd say you probably need the paranoid explanation that there is a small ninja team of paid shills out to get you, to cope with the embarrassment of signally failing to convince anyone to go along with your game.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. It's your cognitive dissonance, not mine.

[Horatius]

But posting liberally to a thread about videos which you haven't watched is maybe indicative of how someone gets to 4,000+ or 8,000+ postings here.



You know, I think your inability to understand history is matched only by your inability to understand what it is you're doing here at JREF. Do you know what that is?


You're advertising.

You're trying to promote your beliefs (Holocaust denial) in the marketplace of ideas. We here are the potential consumers of those ideas, whom you wish to attract to your product.

Now, we skeptics here at JREF are a desirable consumer base in the marketplace of ideas. We are well-known for being smart shoppers, not easily swayed by the nonsense of the day. As such, purveyors of ideas come to us from all over, knowing that if they can convince us, they can convince almost anyone to believe as they do. Thus, we have people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, God, Angels, homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, and a thousand other ideas vying for our attention.

Now remember, you came to us. We did not go looking for your favourite forum to start a discussion of your videos, you came to our forum. If you want to compete against those others for our attention, you must give us something more than they do. I can go to any forum on this site, and find some earnest idea-pusher eager to engage me, and convince me to join them in their beliefs. Why should I engage with you, rather than any one of them?

Your posts here are your advertisements, and they are all you have to draw us in. Despite that, though, right from the very start, you have consistently refused to give us the information that we, as smart shoppers, have learned is needed to make any engagement with you worthwhile. We've shown you reports on your beliefs that indicate they are seriously flawed, which you have made no effort to rebut. It's as if a car salesman we to simply wave away a Consumers Report article that indicated the car he was selling was a fire hazard. Rejecting such a report out of hand may be easy, but it won't sell a car, will it?


You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.

[uk_dave]

(lots of good stuff)

Well said.

[JimBenArm]

So, tell me again why I should watch this crap? The Holocaust happened. This is an absolute, verified fact. Some minor details may be open for discussion, but that's all. I don't need to watch denier videos to know that they are crap. It's kind of a given, much like knowing the sky will be blue on a sunny day. You can post videos forever, but they will still be crap. To watch them is to give them credence they do not deserve. I don't need to debunk them, that's like debunking a child's fairy tale, since that's all they are, only much more disgusting, given the subject.

So go find another audience. This one is just too smart to fall for your clumsy marketing attempts, and your inability to be able to make coherent arguments. I hear there are some neo-Nazi groups in Idaho. They'll probably buy what you're selling. After all, neo-Nazis are some of the stupidest people on the planet.

[ElMondoHummus]

If Bud is unwilling or too lazy to put to text the points he made in the video, then there is zero reason to go watch it. I've done that enough for 9/11 conspiracy fantasy peddlers; I've heard enough of their videos promising unbeatable, undeniable arguments only to bother viewing the video and see the same myths get recycled over and over again. In short, historical revisionists have a track record of empty promises. What in the world would be different about a self-professed holocaust denier's video?

The bottom line to Budly is this: You bring your argument here. You do not tell people to go view the argument elsewhere. Period. End of story. If you refuse to do so, there's nothing to discuss.

[Dave Rogers]

You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.

Nominated. And if I ever take SteveAustin off ignore, I'll post him a link to it.

Dave

[beachnut]

Hi Arus808,

You're right: if a video has been debunked by a blogspot website, there's no need for you to watch it.

And you're right: I should write a rebuttal to a rebuttal of a video you're never going to watch. And post it here so that you can read it and totally understand it. Videos debunked over 60 years ago by my father and thousands more.
The failed videos are what comes from dirt dumb neoNAZIs who can't comprehend reality due to massive ignorance and/or hate. Your support of the videos and web site mean you lack knowledge on a topic which was debunked by history. You need to gain some knowledge to understand the videos were developed by a sick idiot unable to form rational thought. Good luck.

[Nick Terry]

You know, I think your inability to understand history is matched only by your inability to understand what it is you're doing here at JREF. Do you know what that is?

You're advertising.

You're trying to promote your beliefs (Holocaust denial) in the marketplace of ideas. We here are the potential consumers of those ideas, whom you wish to attract to your product.

Now, we skeptics here at JREF are a desirable consumer base in the marketplace of ideas. We are well-known for being smart shoppers, not easily swayed by the nonsense of the day. As such, purveyors of ideas come to us from all over, knowing that if they can convince us, they can convince almost anyone to believe as they do. Thus, we have people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, God, Angels, homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, and a thousand other ideas vying for our attention.

Now remember, you came to us. We did not go looking for your favourite forum to start a discussion of your videos, you came to our forum. If you want to compete against those others for our attention, you must give us something more than they do. I can go to any forum on this site, and find some earnest idea-pusher eager to engage me, and convince me to join them in their beliefs. Why should I engage with you, rather than any one of them?

Your posts here are your advertisements, and they are all you have to draw us in. Despite that, though, right from the very start, you have consistently refused to give us the information that we, as smart shoppers, have learned is needed to make any engagement with you worthwhile. We've shown you reports on your beliefs that indicate they are seriously flawed, which you have made no effort to rebut. It's as if a car salesman we to simply wave away a Consumers Report article that indicated the car he was selling was a fire hazard. Rejecting such a report out of hand may be easy, but it won't sell a car, will it?


You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.

Nominated also. This post has already been quoted elsewhere, by someone else, which is testimony to how relevant it is to just about every form of lunacy that JREF contends with.

[Horatius]

Nominated also. This post has already been quoted elsewhere, by someone else, which is testimony to how relevant it is to just about every form of lunacy that JREF contends with.



Thanks for the Nominations, guys! I'll have to go google this, to see where else it was quoted! ETA: Can't find anything yet. Where was it quoted?

[Budly]

Hi Everyone,

I just read all the posts and a lot of people said "why should we watch these videos." I'll give some reasons:

There are major players in the Middle East who are holocaust deniers. Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad of Iran for instance. Then there's Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority who did a doctoral dissertation that had a holocaust denial aspect.

If you think holocaust denial is just pure madness, it's easy to think Ahmahdinejad is mad, and it's easier for the public to think it's o.k. to bomb Iran, overthrow the regime, just like the USA did in the early 1950's.

Thus it's perhaps good to understand what holocaust denial is, and the best way to learn about it, is to read what deniers say in their own words.

Here's another reason, the video Buchenwald (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html) makes the claim that a Psyche Warfare Operation took place at Buchenwald. Does that stop there? No, because extrapolating from that, the video Nazi Shrunken Heads (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/nazishrunkenheads/index.html) claims that a Psyche Warfare Operation was likely waged against Idi Amin. Afterall, don't you think a leader who is so delusional that he thinks he's the "Last King of Scotland" is a bit farfetched? As far fetched as Nazis shrinking heads? That's Psyche Warfare stuff. Public Relations warfare stuff.

Granted that holocaust deniers focusing on lampshades and shrunken heads, is basically minutiae of the holocaust. But it's not enough just to discount it. Go deeper: why was the belief there in the first place: Answer: Allied Psyche Warfare operation.

If shrunken heads are minutiae, then the video One Third of the Holocaust (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/one_third_of_the_holocaust.html) is not. That video is about Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, and were you to read Professor Timothy Snyder's article called "Holocaust: The Ignored Reality" (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22875) in the New York Review of Books on 7/16/9, you would find his claim that these camps (not Auschwitz) are the center of an adequate version of holocaust history.

It's easy to dip into these videos. Just look at episode 1 (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/one_third_of_the_holocaust.html) of One Third Of the Holocaust. It puts forth the notion that the most important Treblinka eyewitness, Yankel Wiernik, is a fraud. Afterward you can read a rebuttal (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html) backed by Nick Terry and Woolf that claims Wiernik is not a fraud. Some people here state that these rebuttals are so rock solid that there's no need to watch the video. The rebuttal is called "Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan." (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html) You'll have to ask yourself if that sounds like the title to a rock solid scholarly rebuttal. Anyway, watching episode 1 (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/one_third_of_the_holocaust.html), and then reading the rebuttal (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html) is a good way to dip into these videos.

In short, holocaust denial is important to understand because it's a belief of key players in the mideast. To chalk it off to madness and hate makes it easier for the media to generate a pro-war consensus against Iran and other countries. Also the Psyche Warfare aspect of it, reverberated into the 70's with deposing Idi Amin. These are two points among many why it's important to know about holocaust denial, and the best way? From a denier's own words at holocaust denial videos. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/) If you learn about holocaust denial by people against it, you're going to get a strawman portrayal. Meaning they create their own straw man, and then knock it down themselves.

[Nick Terry]

Thanks for the Nominations, guys! I'll have to go google this, to see where else it was quoted! ETA: Can't find anything yet. Where was it quoted?

RODOH. (http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/7279?page=-1)

Jon Harrison has, by the way, just blogged a few comments on this thread at Holocaust Controversies.


Denierbud Implodes (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/08/denierbud-implodes.html)

Question: When is 5% "very close" to 0%

Answer: When you are as deluded and dishonest as Denierbud.

Denierbud turned up on this JREF thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151218) on the same day that the Negationist Team formally withdrew (http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/7282?page=1) its acceptance of our challenge to debate the Aktion Reinhardt camps. The dishonesty of his opening post was immediately apparent to that forum's readers. Denierbud wrote: I am a holocaust denier, but open to your view.

There are numerous holocaust denial videos found at:
holocaustdenialvideos.com

I'm most interested in what people think about the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found there but feel free to discuss the other holocaust denial videos also.

I am asking if anyone here can watch some episodes of one of the videos and state specifically that they don't agree with in a specific episode. I request the following guidelines:

1) Discuss a specific episode of a specific video. The videos are all broken up into episodes. Don't change subject to another holocaust topic, which the videos don't cover. For instance the comment "what about the millions who saw it happen?" would be breaking this guideline, since the videos don't cover that and it thus changes the topic.

2) Don't focus on how it is or hateful to be a denier. Rather, state specifically what you don't agree with (or agree with) in a specific episode of a specific video at holocaust denial videos dot com.

Sorry to put "specific" in bold but you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get people to do this. We'll see if anyone can do it here. The dishonesty here is clear: someone who is genuinely "open to your view" does not formulate rules that close off any questions that force him to explain his position and place his claims in context.

It also became apparent that JREF posters were familiar with our past rebuttals of Denierbud's videos and were able to link to our rebuttals without any prompting from ourselves. When a succession of JREF posters insisted that he respond to those rebuttals, Denierbud fell back on the bizarre claim that Pressac's estimate of Zyklon-B usage at Auschwitz was 'very close' to his own: The point in the video is that even an acknowledged holocaust scholar says that 95 percent of the cans of Zyklon B were used for delousing. It's possible to use that and not agree with it. To paraphrase: "Even so and so says something that is very close to my view."--it's like that.This last sentence is simply untrue. Whilst Pressac's claim has been disputed by other authorities (most notably Van Pelt), Pressac's position is diametrically opposed to Denierbud's, for the obvious reason that Pressac goes on to argue that the remaining 5% was still used to gas hundreds of thousands of Jews. Denierbud's entire dogma requires zero Jewish deaths by this method.

The difference between 5% and 0% is therefore huge in this context, just as it would be if I owned 5% of the USA's national wealth and my neighbour owned 0%.

Does Denierbud not grasp basic mathematics, and indeed basic logic, or is he simply a liar? Either way, his shambolic performance at JREF is further proof that denial, having failed in all other public fora, is now a laughing stock in the Internet community.

[Nick Terry]

Hi Everyone,

I just read all the posts and a lot of people said "why should we watch these videos." I'll give some reasons:

There are major players in the Middle East who are holocaust deniers. Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad of Iran for instance. Then there's Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority who did a doctoral dissertation that had a holocaust denial aspect.

If you think holocaust denial is just pure madness, it's easy to think Ahmahdinejad is mad, and it's easier for the public to think it's o.k. to bomb Iran, overthrow the regime, just like the USA did in the early 1950's.

Thus it's perhaps good to understand what holocaust denial is, and the best way to learn about it, is to read what deniers say in their own words.

Here's another reason, the video Buchenwald makes the claim that a Psyche Warfare Operation took place at Buchenwald. Does that stop there? No, because extrapolating from that, the video Nazi Shrunken Heads claims that a Psyche Warfare Operation was likely waged against Idi Amin. Afterall, don't you think a leader who is so delusional that he thinks he's the "Last King of Scotland" is a bit farfetched? As far fetched as nazis shrinking heads?

Granted that holocaust deniers focusing on lampshades and shrunken heads, is basically minutiae of the holocaust. But it's not enough just to discount it. Go deeper: why was the belief there in the first place: Answer: Allied Psyche Warfare operation.

If shrunken heads are minutiae, then the video One Third of the Holocaust is not. That video is about Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, and were you to read Professor Timothy Snyder's article called "Holocaust: The Ignored Reality" in the New York Review of Books on 7/16/9, you would find his claim that these camps (not Auschwitz) are the center of an adequate version of holocaust history.

It's easy to dip into these videos. Just look at episode 1 of One Third Of the Holocaust. It puts forth the notion that the most important Treblinka eyewitness, Yankel Wiernik, is a fraud. Afterward you can read a rebuttal backed by Nick Terry and Woolf that claims Wiernik is not a fraud. Some people here state that these rebuttals are so rock solid that there's no need to watch the video. The rebuttal is called "Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan" if that seems like the title of a rock solid scholarly rebuttal, then so be it. Anyway, watching episode 1, and then reading the rebuttal is a good way to dip into these videos.

In short, holocaust denial is important to understand because it's a belief of key players in the mideast. To chalk it off to madness and hate makes it easier for the media to generate a pro-war consensus against Iran. Also the Psyche Warfare aspect of it, reverberated into the 70's with deposing Idi Amin. These are two points among many why it's important to know about holocaust denial, and the best way? From a denier's own words at holocaust denial videos.

God, you're a truly lousy salesman.

[woolfe99]

Hi Woolfe99

Here's something I prefer: why don't you watch an episode of a video at [link] which has never been rebutted over at the HolocaustControversies blogspot and then offer your view here. How about the video [link] and the assertion that the lamphade and shrunken heads are there as part of a Psyche Warfare operation to denazify the German population, but the info "blew back" into American media. Foolmewunz is also maybe going to watch it. There is no information about it at holocaustcontroversies, and Nick Terry claims he's never watched it nor will he. So maybe you can watch it and offer your independent opinion here.

Let's see. I've seen all of the One Third of the Holocaust videos. And the Cole video (twice). I've read two books by Mattagno, the Butz book, the Sanning book, the Leuchter Report, the Rudolf Report, and nearly the entire archive of the JHR. I've also absorded two years of accumulated denier postings as RODOH, and sporadic denier postings at CODOH. Am I suddenly going to have an epiphany over a video about lampshades and shrunken heads? Will I suddenly see a connection between allegations against people like Ilsa Koch at Buchenwald, and mass exterminations by way of shootings and gassings in Poland and the USSR, that I have never seen before? I have read Dr. Neander's excellent footnoted monograph on soap and lampshades, and no offense, but the odds of that video contributing anything further to my understanding of these issues are slim to none.

I still want to know why anyone thinks it appropriate to open a "new" discussion of years old videos, when there are extant rebuttals of those videos which have never been addressed by either the creator of the videos or any proponent of the videos. It's like you're pretending as if the refutations never happened, just like you're pretending the Holocaust never happened. Why don't you address the refutations of "One Third of the Holocaust," and then I'll view any other videos you'd like, and we can discuss them right here.

- woolfe

[Nick Terry]

If shrunken heads are minutiae, then the video One Third of the Holocaust is not. That video is about Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, and were you to read Professor Timothy Snyder's article called "Holocaust: The Ignored Reality" in the New York Review of Books on 7/16/9, you would find his claim that these camps (not Auschwitz) are the center of an adequate version of holocaust history.

Great, now please formulate some claims and statements about Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. In your own words, please.

[16.5]

Oh Hai Budly:

Hi Everyone,

I just read all the posts and a lot of people said "why should we watch these videos." I'll give some reasons:

There are major players in the Middle East who are holocaust deniers. Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad of Iran for instance. Then there's Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority who did a doctoral dissertation that had a holocaust denial aspect.

If you think holocaust denial is just pure madness, it's easy to think Ahmahdinejad is mad, and it's easier for the public to think it's o.k. to bomb Iran, overthrow the regime, just like the USA did in the early 1950's.

Thus it's perhaps good to understand what holocaust denial is, and the best way to learn about it, is to read what deniers say in their own words.

Here's another reason, the video Buchenwald makes the claim that a Psyche Warfare Operation took place at Buchenwald. Does that stop there? No, because extrapolating from that, the video Nazi Shrunken Heads claims that a Psyche Warfare Operation was likely waged against Idi Amin. Afterall, don't you think a leader who is so delusional that he thinks he's the "Last King of Scotland" is a bit farfetched? As far fetched as nazis shrinking heads?

Granted that holocaust deniers focusing on lampshades and shrunken heads, is basically minutiae of the holocaust. But it's not enough just to discount it. Go deeper: why was the belief there in the first place: Answer: Allied Psyche Warfare operation.

If shrunken heads are minutiae, then the video One Third of the Holocaust is not. That video is about Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, and were you to read Professor Timothy Snyder's article called "Holocaust: The Ignored Reality" in the New York Review of Books on 7/16/9, you would find his claim that these camps (not Auschwitz) are the center of an adequate version of holocaust history.

It's easy to dip into these videos. Just look at episode 1 of One Third Of the Holocaust. It puts forth the notion that the most important Treblinka eyewitness, Yankel Wiernik, is a fraud. Afterward you can read a rebuttal backed by Nick Terry and Woolf that claims Wiernik is not a fraud. Some people here state that these rebuttals are so rock solid that there's no need to watch the video. The rebuttal is called "Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan." You'll have to ask yourself if that sounds like the title to a rock solid scholarly rebuttal. Anyway, watching episode 1, and then reading the rebuttal is a good way to dip into these videos.

In short, holocaust denial is important to understand because it's a belief of key players in the mideast. To chalk it off to madness and hate makes it easier for the media to generate a pro-war consensus against Iran and other countries. Also the Psyche Warfare aspect of it, reverberated into the 70's with deposing Idi Amin. These are two points among many why it's important to know about holocaust denial, and the best way? From a denier's own words at holocaust denial videos. If you learn about holocaust denial by people against it, you're going to get a strawman portrayal. Meaning they create their own straw man, and then knock it down themselves.

Huh, can't really wait to dip my toes into your videos that you are spamming here with rocket scientists like those!

[Nick Terry]

Afterward you can read a rebuttal backed by Nick Terry and Woolf that claims Wiernik is not a fraud. Some people here state that these rebuttals are so rock solid that there's no need to watch the video. The rebuttal is called "Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan." You'll have to ask yourself if that sounds like the title to a rock solid scholarly rebuttal.

DUUUUUH, those videos are not scholarly. That's like elevating Loose Change to a 'peer reviewed study' or something.

Damn, where's the my-head-hurts smilie when you need it?

[Budly]

Hi Woolf, Hi Nick Terry

I slept 8 hours, got up and read the posts and responded. You guys then posted responses before I was barely done. Had you been hitting the reload button for hours? You guys must be getting paid. Look at the time of the posts. I don't post for what 10 hours? And you post 2 minutes after mine? LOL.

[Horatius]

There are major players in the Middle East who are holocaust deniers. Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad of Iran for instance. Then there's Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority who did a doctoral dissertation that had a holocaust denial aspect.

If you think holocaust denial is just pure madness, it's easy to think Ahmahdinejad is mad, and it's easier for the public to think it's o.k. to bomb Iran, overthrow the regime, just like the USA did in the early 1950's.


Well, finally a reason. Now, we must ask, "Is it a good reason?"

If I'm interested in learning what Holocaust deniers have to say, because certain Holocaust deniers have positions of power in the Middle East, why would I turn to these videos as my source? You mention that Mahmoud Abbas wrote a thesis that contained elements of denial. If I was interested in learning his position, would it not be better to find a copy of that thesis?

In other words, why would I assume that the reasons you deny the Holocaust are the exact same as the reasons Mahmoud Abbas denies it?

You also choose to ignore the many other reasons that we might some day go to war with Iran, promoting Holocaust denial to a primary position that it quite simply does not warrant. I have never seen any suggestion, other than yours, that we should go to war with Iran over the issue of Holocaust denial. In fact, I'd suggest that the vast majority of people are largely unaware that Ahmahdinejad is a denier. If we ever go to war with Iran, it will almost certainly be because of conflicts in Iraq or the Persian Gulf.




...and the best way? From a denier's own words at holocaust denial videos. If you learn about holocaust denial by people against it, you're going to get a strawman portrayal. Meaning they create their own straw man, and then knock it down themselves.



Of course, it's not clear that the "best" way to learn about a subject is from the proponents of that subject. Quite often that's the worst way, as they make assumptions about levels of knowledge that are inaccurate, and thus leave people behind in their discussions.

Notwithstanding that, you've suggested that opponents of deniers may have created Strawmen arguments. However, you have failed to show that this has occurred, despite more than sufficient opportunities to do so. You've seen the rebuttals to your videos, yet you still have not pointed out even one area where such rebuttals misrepresented your positions. The closest you've come is to disparage the title of the document, which is, quite literally, the most superficial response you could have provided.

So, go ahead, show us these "strawmen" that your opponents have created.

[Horatius]

Hi Woolf, Hi Nick Terry

I slept 8 hours, got up and read the posts and responded. You guys then posted responses before I was barely done. Had you been hitting the reload button for hours? You guys must be getting paid. Look at the time of the posts. I don't post for what 10 hours? And you post 2 minutes after mine? LOL.



You do realize that people post from different time zones, right? You do know what time zones are, right?

[Par]

Hi Woolf, Hi Nick Terry

I slept 8 hours, got up and read the posts and responded. You guys then posted responses before I was barely done. Had you been hitting the reload button for hours? You guys must be getting paid. Look at the time of the posts. I don't post for what 10 hours? And you post 2 minutes after mine? LOL.


Deranged, of course.

http://i29.tinypic.com/4vs3n4.png

[16.5]

Hi Woolf, Hi Nick Terry

I slept 8 hours, got up and read the posts and responded. You guys then posted responses before I was barely done. Had you been hitting the reload button for hours? You guys must be getting paid. Look at the time of the posts. I don't post for what 10 hours? And you post 2 minutes after mine? LOL.

Hey, how about me? I just happened to be reading the thread while having a little lunch, and i'm not getting paid!

Mind you, I would have posted quicker, but I was still laughing.

[Nick Terry]

Hi Woolf, Hi Nick Terry

I slept 8 hours, got up and read the posts and responded. You guys then posted responses before I was barely done. Had you been hitting the reload button for hours? You guys must be getting paid. Look at the time of the posts. I don't post for what 10 hours? And you post 2 minutes after mine? LOL.

Again it seems you are reasoning like a small child and need to have some fairly obvious things pointed out to you. If you LOOK at the date stamps I responded to a post BY HORATIUS which appeared BEFORE your response and thus my reply TO HORATIUS appeared AFTER your response. Thus when the page reloaded to update with my reply TO HORATIUS, I saw your response.

As it was basically drivel, it took me no more than 2 minutes to read and reply with a one-liner. A few more remarks followed thereafter, I think I went to take a piss in between some of them.

[JimBenArm]

I need to watch your crap videos to understand why stupid people in power deny the Holocaust? No, not so much. The reason they deny it is even simpler. They hate Jews. All Jews. So, in order to make their hatred so much more complete, they deny that horrible things happened to them. End of story.
See? I just saved myself a bunch of time by not having to watch your crappy videos. I also saved a bunch of money on my car insurance.

[Klimax]

Hi Woolf, Hi Nick Terry

I slept 8 hours, got up and read the posts and responded. You guys then posted responses before I was barely done. Had you been hitting the reload button for hours? You guys must be getting paid. Look at the time of the posts. I don't post for what 10 hours? And you post 2 minutes after mine? LOL.

Why? This happens all the time here.

And since you post very familiar things to them,the time needed for response is very low. And lenght of post can be significant yet will take only few minutes because poster knows too well given subject.

Now could we have some written claims? Videos are not nice as they often take more time to listen than to read text with same content.(Like transcription...)

[dudalb]

There are major players in the Middle East who are holocaust deniers. Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad of Iran for instance. Then there's Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority who did a doctoral dissertation that had a holocaust denial aspect.

If you think holocaust denial is just pure madness, it's easy to think Ahmahdinejad is mad, and it's easier for the public to think it's o.k. to bomb Iran, overthrow the regime, just like the USA did in the early 1950's.

Thus it's perhaps good to understand what holocaust denial is, and the best way to learn about it, is to read what deniers say in their own words.



:jaw-dropp

I would say a vast majority of the people here think Ahmahdinejad is a nutjob and a thug...as recent events in Iran show. Just the kind of guy a Holocaust Denier would like.
And I might be making a wild,wild, dumb guess here, but I would not be all surprised if Budly is also a 9/11 Truther.
And it won't be long now until my earlier prediction comes true and how he really feels about Jews and other "inferiors" come out, as it always does.

[Horatius]

I just noticed something I completely missed first time through!


and the best way to learn about it, is to read what deniers say in their own words.



If you want us to "read" what deniers have to say, why then do you insist we must watch a video? Pretty much everyone here has been asking you to please, please, write out even a brief description of what it is you think you can tell us that is so different from what has already gone before, and this is exactly what you have refused to do.

Even Nick Terry, who is clearly not at all impressed with your scholarship, has indicated a willingness to consider your arguments of you were to provide them in a textual format, but you still refuse to do that. What, then, are we to take away from your sales pitch, other than a good Stundie nomination?

[Budly]

The reason nobody can refute the video Buchenwald (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html), is because they can't. Notice how Woolf and Nick Terry say they haven't seen it? Notice how no one at holocaustControversies or NIZKOR has ever rebutted anything in it? Notice how no poster here has commented on it?

With 5 pages of posts and 1800 views (though half are mine, LOL) people here have watched the videos. But when you start agreeing with holocaust denial positions, you keep quiet. It's taboo.

[Hokulele]

The reason no one has disproven the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is because they can't. :rolleyes:

[headscratcher4]

Strikes me that these here videos are a lot like having pieces of the true cross.

[Horatius]

With 5 pages of posts and 1800 views (though half are mine, LOL) people here have watched the videos. But when you start agreeing with holocaust denial positions, you keep quiet. It's taboo.



So, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, you've convinced yourself that, not only have people here watched your video, they also agree with it.


And you wonder why people like Nick and his colleagues won't bother listening to you anymore.

[Nick Terry]

The reason nobody can refute the video Buchenwald (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html), is because they can't. Notice how Woolf and Nick Terry say they haven't seen it? Notice how no one at holocaustControversies or NIZKOR has ever rebutted anything in it? Notice how no poster here has commented on it?

Again, you reason like a small child. 'You can't refute me nur nur nur' is not actually a very clever argument to make, since it makes the probably foolish claim that someone might not come along at a future date and do exactly that. Denierbud's track record is such that this is surely very likely, given his propensity to make baseless and wholly unfounded allegations that appear to have been invented on the fly.

Even without seeing the video, the subtitle to a clip like

Episode 21: A Scriptwriter's Great Idea: Baking Ovens To Cremation Ovens

does not fill one with great confidence, since it appears at first glance to be making the claim that there were no crematoria at Buchenwald. Are you serious?

Krema Deniers are revisionism's equivalent to no-planers.

The clip before, 'Buchenwald executions', has the cover of Catherine Merridale's Ivan's War on display. Therefore again without seeing the video, one gets the impression that the clip deals with Aktion 14 f 14, the application of so-called Einsatzbefehl Nr 14, which involved the execution of "politically and racially undesirable" Soviet POWs

If the video was a text, one could determine at a glance whether the maker had the linguistic ability and research nous to have read Reinhard Otto's book documenting the extent of Aktion 14 f 14 by among other means locating the card index for Soviet POWs in WASt, and noting the annotations of 'transfers' to concentration camps right before witnesses in the camps, not to mention in some cases other documents, indicate that they were indeed batch-executed by the Lager-SS.

But I'll take a wild ass guess and assert that denierbud, whose command of German seems to be nonexistent, does not know about Otto's book nor has digested its contents, and is therefore trying to deny a well-documented piece of WWII history.

All this is rather by the by, of course. Your advocacy seems to have backed itself into a corner by claiming a special status for supposedly "un-refuted" pieces of work.

Have you any idea how many books relating to the Holocaust have gone undiscussed and unmentioned by 'revisionists'? Or how many documents have been ignored? How many witnesses banished to oblivion by real or pretend ignorance.

If you want to play the 'you can't refute me' game, then fine. I'll match your Buchenwald videos with the following article

Rusiniak, Martyna, ‘Treblinka – Eldorado Podlasia?’, Kwartalnik Historii Zydow 2/2006, pp.200-211

which basically scuppers every piece of online nonsense profferred by deniers on a camp that killed more than twenty times the number of victims recorded for Buchenwald, and it scuppers the denier nonsense without even trying.

Why? Because no denier has ever refuted it.

Nur nur nur nur.

[Horatius]

Oh, that is so nominated!

[Par]

The reason nobody can refute the video Buchenwald, is because they can't.


Extraordinary.

[headscratcher4]

Extraordinary.


You didnt really get the tone right. Try: "Exraordinarilly stupid". Yep, that works.

[Budly]

I'd be glad to respond to the HolocaustControversies rebuttal (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html) to episode 1 of One Third Of The Holocaust. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/one_third_of_the_holocaust.html)

The first part of the rebuttal discusses how historians look at convergence of testimonial evidence. The author states that it's o.k. and understandable if there are memory errors. Can a witness be discredited? Not according to this explanation. An obviously fraudulent eyewitnesses like Yankel Weirnik who claimed a guy dressed as a clown with an alarm clock tied around his neck, timed people going to the bathroom at Treblinka isn't discredited by saying such a ridiculous thing. And because A Year in Treblinka was used as a template by other witnesses, at least one other witness said the same thing as the rebuttal author points out.

The next passage makes a big deal about where the testimony of Yankel Wiernik can be found, stating that it's disingenous to say it's hard to find when it's on the web. Maybe the videomaker wanted a hard copy. By the way, the web version of Wiernik's account (http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm) is great to read because you can see that Denierbud left out a lot of parts that show Wiernik is lying. Like where the naked woman leaps a 9 foot fence, from chapter 8 of A Year in Treblinka:
On one occasion a girl fell out of line. Nude as she was, she leaped over a barbed wire fence three meters high, and tried to escape in our direction. The Ukrainians noticed this and started to pursue her. One of them almost reached her but he was too close to her to shoot, and she wrenched the rifle from his hands. It wasn't easy to open fire since there were guards all around and there was the danger that one of the guards might be hit. But as the girl held the gun, it went off and killed one of the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians were furious. In her fury, the girl struggled with his comrades. She managed to fire another shot, which hit another Ukrainian, whose arm subsequently had to be amputated. At last they seized her. She paid dearly for her courage. She was beaten, bruised, spat upon, kicked and finally killed. She was our nameless heroine.

In other words, Denierbud doesn't include ALL the unbelievable stories.

Then the point is made that by episode 29, Denierbud has found a book that has Wiernik's account and was thus being dishonest about how hard it was to find. But maybe Denierbud didn't know about Donat's book when he made episode 1, but knew about it by episode 29. A 4-hour video takes years to make.

The next passage is all about body burning. Weirnik said women burned better than men and were thus used as kindling for fires. The rebuttal seeks a way around that absurd notion. The valid translation from the 1944 edition of Wiernik's testimony states "the male corpses would not burn at all, although they were sprinkled with benzine." The rebuttal author finds a more agreeable translation that changes it to "soaked in gasoline" (nevermind the wartime fuel shortage.) "The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn." So "sprinkled with benzine" becomes "soaked in gasoline" thereby suiting the rebuttal author.

The entire burning operation described by Wiernik is ridiculous. Sprinkling gasoline on a pile of something that doesn't burn on it's own, tends to create a temporary fire while the gas burns off. However, some things absorb the gasoline in firemaking, but human bodies don't. Thus the gasoline wets the surface and burns off.

The assertion that a guy named Herbert Floss came along and made a better burning system, is ridiculous, as is described by Carlo Mattogno and Juergen Graf in their book Treblinka: (http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/treblinka.pdf) (allow 2 minutes for the Treblinka book link to download.)

No less abstruse is the notion that Himmler, who had at his disposal the best German engineers and technicians in the field of cremation – those of the firm of J.A. Topf & Söhne (Erfurt), Hans Kori (Berlin) and Didier Werke (Berlin), who had supplied the crematoria furnaces to all the German concentration camps – sent a nobody by the name of Herbert Floss to Treblinka!
pg. 146.

It's ridiculous to talk about SS burning experts when there is no attempt to hold the heat in, or put an elevated slanted roof over the fire in rainy Poland. These are the first things anyone would have done, let alone an SS burning expert.

In the next passage the rebuttal tries to explain how a person could be shot with a gun and how the bullet could go through all the clothing and just leave a mark but not pierce the skin. The rebuttal author explains how this is possible. It's farfetched as is the part that Wiernik then kills the shooter with an axe. The rebuttal tries to explain how it's possible.

Where I do agree with the rebuttal is that I think the origin of Julian, the "scheissmeister" is not correct. It probably in reality wasn't a metal products owner who had a dispute with the union.

The rebuttal continues for many more pages but I'll pause here to see if anyone is even interested, since it hardly is meaningful if people haven't watched the video.

[Horatius]

The first part of the rebuttal discusses how historians look at convergence of testimonial evidence. The author states that it's o.k. and understandable if there are memory errors. Can a witness be discredited? Not according to this explanation. An obviously fraudulent eyewitnesses like Yankel Weirnik who claimed a guy dressed as a clown with an alarm clock tied around his neck, timed people going to the bathroom at Treblinka isn't discredited by saying such a ridiculous thing. And because A Year in Treblinka was used as a template by other witnesses, at least one other witness said the same thing as the rebuttal author points out.




Well, right off the bat, you've misrepresented their position. What was that about "strawman"?



The above leads to assuming that, if Raul Hilberg and Yitzhak Arad used Yankel Wiernik’s A Year in Treblinka as one of the many sources on which their studies about the Nazi genocide of the Jews in general and the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps in particular were based, they did not thereby accept every single part and detail of Wiernik’s account as accurate. What they accepted, where they referred to Wiernik’s account as a source, was the accuracy of such parts thereof that they had previously cross-checked against other testimonies independent of Wiernik’s and/or against evidence other than testimonies. Wiernik’s account contains many details that are confirmed by evidence independent thereof, namely other witness testmonies, depositions of indicted perpetrators before West German courts and documents regarding the deportations to Treblinka. In the following analysis of Bud’s attempted deconstruction of Wiernik’s account, we will come upon examples of such coincidence.


They say nothing to suggest that a witness cannot be discredited; in fact, they give a perfectly reasonable account of how you can determine what part of an account should be accepted, and which discarded:

"What they accepted, where they referred to Wiernik’s account as a source, was the accuracy of such parts thereof that they had previously cross-checked against other testimonies independent of Wiernik’s and/or against evidence other than testimonies."

Your above paragraph is not a rebuttal to their argument, it is merely a re-statement of the argument that they are actually refuting: that any part of a witness testimony that is unsupportable automatically invalidates everything else the person says. I'm sure if you were to show them a particular witness who only testified to ridiculous, unsupported events, they'd be quite willing to discard that witness.

So far, it's not looking good. Should I now discard everything else you say? Or would you have me apply lesser standards to you, than you apply to this witness?

[16.5]

Hi Budly!

I was stopped dead when i saw this in your last post:

"No less abstruse is the notion that Himmler, who had at his disposal the best German engineers and technicians in the field of cremation – those of the firm of J.A. Topf & Söhne (Erfurt), Hans Kori (Berlin) and Didier Werke (Berlin), who had supplied the crematoria furnaces to all the German concentration camps – sent a nobody by the name of Herbert Floss to Treblinka!"

Why in the hell would they have used Floss when they had a trio of good old fashioned Nazi crematoria manufacturers already on board?
Hell, they built the ovens at all those other concentration camps!

[Nick Terry]

Hi Budly!

I was stopped dead when i saw this in your last post:

"No less abstruse is the notion that Himmler, who had at his disposal the best German engineers and technicians in the field of cremation – those of the firm of J.A. Topf & Söhne (Erfurt), Hans Kori (Berlin) and Didier Werke (Berlin), who had supplied the crematoria furnaces to all the German concentration camps – sent a nobody by the name of Herbert Floss to Treblinka!"

Why in the hell would they have used Floss when they had a trio of good old fashioned Nazi crematoria manufacturers already on board?
Hell, they built the ovens at all those other concentration camps!

Building the Auschwitz crematoria took a planning and construction process of about 21 months, from the first blueprints in October 1941 to the final handover of the 4th crematoria in June 1943, with the first coming online after 18 months, in March 1943.

You might as well ask how come the Blair government didn't construct expensive incinerator facilities to deal with the aftermath of the 2001 FMD epidemic; burning in the open was simply quicker, cheaper and more efficient.

[Caustic Logic]

Hi Woolf, Hi Nick Terry
<snip>
You guys must be getting paid.

Can you prove that people can respond so quickly only when compensated? No? Then kindly ....

I can't believe this thread is still going. I move that Budly's linking ability be removed and all links disabled. IF he has info worth us trafficking his admitted holocaust denial swill for, SURELY it's worth Budly himself digging said info (wasn't it some witness?) back out of these videos and bringing it here in text form.

Is that really so difficult?

An Ode To This Bud Character.

So...he only wants to discuss certain elements of the Holocaust story, and won't entertain discussion of them in context of the event at large. Ok.

He wants us to push traffic TO his website, and seems unable to even offer up a meaningful summary that would give us a legitimate reason for watching his videos and investigating his claims.

The proof is not in your videos. You can't debate it here and now, without preconditions, you are approaching this dishonestly, reeking of fraud and spam.

Can you summarize for us, what your claims of contention are with the Holocaust record? I'm with Horatius here - I don't want to give you a single hit's worth of internet traffic unless I can be convinced of the possibility of you being "onto something."

But then again, you appear to be from the Ashida Kim school of Internet debate, so I don't expect anything out of you but more of the same. I'd bet a double sawbuck that within the diseased, rotten, sad core of your arguments lies a festering, putrid center of thinly veiled white nationalism masquerading as legitimate scholarly research. I think guys like you are just angry you were born about fifty years too late and on the wrong continent.

Guess what? You're fringe for a reason, and it ain't because the PTB have chosen to oppress the righteous little white-pride "researchers." It's because you have no basis whatsoever but hate. Call it what you want, but that's where it comes from no matter how you want to 'spin it.' I pity you more than anything else - you're a dying species. History and evolution do not favor racial purity and the ideas that come along with it. You're obsolete.

Now Joey, attack the argument and not the arguer. :P

[Budly]

Hi Budly!

I was stopped dead when i saw this in your last post:

"No less abstruse is the notion that Himmler, who had at his disposal the best German engineers and technicians in the field of cremation – those of the firm of J.A. Topf & Söhne (Erfurt), Hans Kori (Berlin) and Didier Werke (Berlin), who had supplied the crematoria furnaces to all the German concentration camps – sent a nobody by the name of Herbert Floss to Treblinka!"

Why in the hell would they have used Floss when they had a trio of good old fashioned Nazi crematoria manufacturers already on board?
Hell, they built the ovens at all those other concentration camps!

Most holocaust believers think that cremation ovens is proof of genocide. It's not. Most small cities had cremation ovens too. Some concentration camps were the size of small cities. For instance Buchenwald had cremation ovens and holocaust historians will tell you that it wasn't a "deathcamp" nor was there an attempt to exterminate Jews there, nor were the majority of people in the camp Jewish.

[abenja1]

Most holocaust believers

And that right there is why I will not to choose to debate you.

[Thunder]

Most holocaust believers think that cremation ovens is proof of genocide. It's not. Most small cities had cremation ovens too. Some concentration camps were the size of small cities. For instance Buchenwald had cremation ovens and holocaust historians will tell you that it wasn't a "deathcamp" nor was there an attempt to exterminate Jews there, nor were the majority of people in the camp Jewish.

I dont care about the gas chambers or the ovens.

All reliable census data shows a loss of Jews from 1938 to 1945 of at least 5 million Jews.

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_408.html

please explain that..or debunk it.

you gonna suggest all census data was Zionist created? all the census takers were bribed by the Jews?

spare us. provide evidence or keep quiet.

the census and population statistics speak for themselves. there are around 5 million or so missing Jews.

[Budly]

Hi Parky76

You broke Guideline #1. See my initial post. I don't know about census data. Census data isn't in the videos. This isn't a "debate anything about the holocaust" thread. Start that thread if you'd like, but this isn't it.

[Thunder]

Hi Parky76

You broke Guideline #1.

u think i care? i am not bound by your "rules"..nor will I ever follow them.

ignore me if u dont like it.

[woolfe99]

Most holocaust believers think that cremation ovens is proof of genocide. It's not. Most small cities had cremation ovens too. Some concentration camps were the size of small cities. For instance Buchenwald had cremation ovens and holocaust historians will tell you that it wasn't a "deathcamp" nor was there an attempt to exterminate Jews there, nor were the majority of people in the camp Jewish.

"Most Holocaust believers think"? Please refrain from strawmanning what others believe. Since many camps that had ovens are not alleged to be extermination camps, your proposition is a mistatement.

More precisely, it is believed that the high number (46) ovens in the case of Auschwitz-Birkenau is strong evidence of an extermination operation because other camps, some of which were indeed the size of "small cities," had far fewer ovens.

Please get the argument right first before trying to refute it.

- woolfe

[Horatius]

Please get the argument right first before trying to refute it.

- woolfe



Oh, Snap!

[fullflavormenthol]

All reliable census data shows a loss of Jews from 1938 to 1945 of at least 5 million Jews...

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_408.html

please explain that..or debunk it...

Most Holocaust deniers want to avoid that because it gets to the heart ofthe matter.

[dudalb]

Hi Parky76

You broke Guideline #1. See my initial post. I don't know about census data. Census data isn't in the videos. This isn't a "debate anything about the holocaust" thread. Start that thread if you'd like, but this isn't it.

Since you can't take a hint..I will try to make this point clear to you:





WE DON"T GIVE A DAMN FOR YOUR STUPID "GUIDELINES!


They are a very lame attempt to lay down rules that make it impossible to debate you by forbidding any evidence that might disprove your "theories".
Regardless of topic,that sort of approach earns you HUGE negative points here.
And that it regards Holocaust Denial makes it even worse.

[Budly]

I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that? I made it clear that I wanted your views on videos. I asked for this communities' views on videos and instead got people asking me about census data, and even a person joining the forum who refused to look at any videos but who wanted to debate me.

[dudalb]

I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that? I made it clear that I wanted your views on videos. I asked for this communities' views on videos and instead got people asking me about census data, and even a person joining the forum who refused to look at any videos but who wanted to debate me.

So now you admit your only purpose for coming here was to peddle your Holocaust Denial garbage. Did you pick the wrong website for that........

[Horatius]

...and even a person joining the forum who refused to look at any videos but who wanted to debate me.




...and, which person would that be?

[beachnut]

...
There are major players in the Middle East who are holocaust deniers. Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad of Iran for instance. Then there's Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority who did a doctoral dissertation that had a holocaust denial aspect.

...
Major bigots is a better term. The videos were made by an idiot who can't figure out the facts. The major players in the Middle East are idiots if they are pushing holocaust denial and will not be major players until they show the ability to stop supporting lies.

Got to love those special leaders who can't figure out the truth.
"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." Good ole Ahmahdinejad "Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations." "The West claims that more than six million Jews were killed in World War II and to compensate for that they established and support Israel. If it is true that the Jews were killed in Europe, why should Israel be established in the East, in Palestine?" An idiot, spreading hate. Looks like Ahmahdinejad is a NAZI at heart; are you? Sounds like convert or die; He sounds lie a terrorist.

Ahmahdinejad, the liar, is a natural dirt dumb denier, he has no gay people in his country and he can prove it! He asks who is the gay person? What a NAZI! Ahmahdinejad looks and is as stupid as the videos you are pushing.

[fullflavormenthol]

You want my views on your videos? You want my views on your videos? I think they are crap. I think all videos that promote racist distortions of history that go so far as to call the survivors of genocide liars are crap at best.

Your videos are crap because they work on the premise that if you prove one thing wrong, no matter how small, no matter how insignifacant that the whole of the Holocaust must be abandoned.

[JimBenArm]

I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that? I made it clear that I wanted your views on videos. I asked for this communities' views on videos and instead got people asking me about census data, and even a person joining the forum who refused to look at any videos but who wanted to debate me.
Oh, nobody here actually thought you wanted a debate. That would imply integrity, intellect, honesty, and insight. Holocaust deniers lack any of those qualities, and I would get better results debating with my shoe.
I think mocking and derision fit so much better, don't you?

[Lonewulf]

I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that? I made it clear that I wanted your views on videos. I asked for this communities' views on videos and instead got people asking me about census data, and even a person joining the forum who refused to look at any videos but who wanted to debate me.

Your videos are full of misinformation and are not worth my time.

As you aren't here to "debate", that's pretty much everything you were asking for.

[Drudgewire]

I made it clear that I wanted your views on videos.


Any videos?

Personally I think the latter "Girls Gone Wild" videos were all about production and celebrities and lacked the drunken innocent charm of the originals.

[elbe]

I think video is dying, it's all digital now!

Is there any original research in these videos to make them worth even a paltry amount of effort? If every claim made in it can be, and has been, seen elsewhere then why should anyone bother with your video?

[JimBenArm]

I think video is dying, it's all digital now!

Is there any original research in these videos to make them worth even a paltry amount of effort? If every claim made in it can be, and has been, seen elsewhere then why should anyone bother with your video?
Silly! Because they're HIS videos, of course!

[Thunder]

I was never here to debate. .

JREF is a debate and discussion forum. Perhaps you should go back to Stormfront.

[elbe]

Silly! Because they're HIS videos, of course!

They clearly aren't! denialbud, budly, world of difference. And I think we all know that people on the interweb would never try to, poorly, mask their identity from site to site.

The OP puts me in mind of a slightly more coherent yrreg. But I don't see why anyone else can't play at the rules game:

3) If you don't write every post in the form of a question you lose that round.

[JoeyDonuts]

4) Every post must end by naming a type of cheese - no repeats.

Stilton.

[Lonewulf]

I reject your arbitrary rules, Joey. You'll never get me to agree to it.








Cheddar.






Damnit.

[Hokulele]

Can we question the rules?

5) All posts must start with the letter "C".


Gruyère.

[JoeyDonuts]

Can you see this, budly/denierbud? We can play with "rules" too.

Gloucester.

[ElMondoHummus]

Whatever.

Velveta.

[Foolmewunz]

Whatever.

Velveta.

Velveeta is a cheese? I have my doubts that it's actually a food, frankly.

Budly are you going to post any actual content from any of the Sacred Videos of Putrid Revisionism? Or were you just here to ratchet up the hit count on your stuff? If, as we suspect, may I be the first to say, "Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out"?

Gorgonzola

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why do you hate jews, Budly?

[JoeyDonuts]

Hi Sword Of Truth

You broke Rule #4.

Limburger.

[Caustic Logic]

Hi Sword Of Truth

You broke Rule #4.

Limburger.

Creative intro to start with C
Hi Joey Donuts

You broke Hokulele's rule # 5 (see post 209).

On another note I had missed where Budly did bring some info! Since this is what we've been asking for I'll scan it and see if my hunch was correct. BTW since he first said
O.K. I'll pick a video for you and an episode:<snip> Here is a specific question for you: Do you think Yankel Wiernik is a credible Treblinka eyewitness?
I figured that was your strong point and you just might even be correct that A witness has credibility issues.
An obviously fraudulent eyewitnesses like Yankel Weirnik who claimed a guy dressed as a clown with an alarm clock tied around his neck, timed people going to the bathroom at Treblinka
The clock makes perfect sense to me, the costume might have to have a back story. Is this the obvious fraud part?
isn't discredited by saying such a ridiculous thing.
Again, not ridiculous in my book. Unusual, sure.
And because A Year in Treblinka was used as a template by other witnesses, at least one other witness said the same thing as the rebuttal author points out.
False story spreading? Or confirmation? As a non-expert i can't say but luckily you've got all kinds certainty.

The next passage makes a big deal about where the testimony of Yankel Wiernik can be found, stating that it's disingenous to say it's hard to find when it's on the web. Maybe the videomaker wanted a hard copy. By the way, the web version of Wiernik's account (http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm) is great to read because you can see that Denierbud left out a lot of parts that show Wiernik is lying. Like where the naked woman leaps a 9 foot fence, from chapter 8 of A Year in Treblinka:

I agree that that story seems unlikely as literal truth. Perhaps he was speaking in metaphors? A superhuman naked female heroine leaping fences and killing enemy soldiers sounds like the kind of urban legend schoolkids would make up and pass around.

In other words, Denierbud doesn't include ALL the unbelievable stories.
Oh my, have you alerted him? So there are other good examples? Fine, you may have a witness whose stories can't be all believed. Perhaps there's something wrong with his mind and memory due to, oh, I dunno... THE HOLOCAUST?

So "sprinkled with benzine" becomes "soaked in gasoline" thereby suiting the rebuttal author.
What's your point? I don't know much about benzene.

Okay that's good enough. Suffice to say, from what you've shown, Wiernik may not be a fully credible witness. That may be wrong, but let's just presume a moment this is true - that even his full account is wrong, or fabricated, and all thing Wiernik, and all subesquent repetitions nased on them, go down. That's a big "if" in itself, but if it were so, what would that really mean for the overall denial case? It's not like our understanding of the holocaust is from one witness with no supporting evidence or anything.

it hardly is meaningful if people haven't watched the video.
No, there's actually less lost, all around, this way. :)

Gorgonzola

[JoeyDonuts]

Confound it all.

Hi Caustic Logic.

You broke rule #4. See post #212.

Pepper Jack

[Nick Terry]

I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that?

:jaw-dropp

Words fail me. So...

Lymeswold

[Budly]

Hi Caustic Logic,

It was somewhat decided to talk about episode 1 of One Third of the Holocaust, and I was goaded into writing a rebuttal to the holocaustControversies rebuttal of episode 1. Yankel Wiernik is largely the topic of that episode. Notice how no one else here even mentioned Wiernik? Nick Terry and Woolf and the HolocaustControversies team believe he's a credible witness, though they're not inclined to mention him here. They skipped him when replying to my "rebuttal to a rebuttal" though I discussed him and included a story from his book.

You wrote,

A superhuman naked female heroine leaping fences and killing enemy soldiers sounds like the kind of urban legend schoolkids would make up and pass around.

Yes, propaganda draws on such powerful stories. The Nazi shrunken head is similar: the Nazis were savages. They were outside of civilized people, hence they made shrunken heads.

Here's why Yankel Wiernik is important:

#1. most important Treblinka eyewitness.
#2. Wrote a book-length memoir before the war was over. (well he's not the writer but I can't get into that.)
#4. The next book-length memoir was written in the 1980's by Samuel Wilenberg.
#5. Treblinka is considered the second most major holocaust camp, with Auschwitz being first.
#6 Major holocaust scholars like Raul Hilberg use Wiernik as a source which makes one question their integrity.
#7 Was a witness at the Eichmann trial.

So this is why it's important. Of course this is only episode 1 of a 4-hour free internet video. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/one_third_of_the_holocaust.html)

Oh, and I think benzene is a term used to mean gasoline in Europe sometimes.

Lord of the Hundreds (http://www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/pages/lordofthehundredscheese)

[tsig]

Hi Parky76

You broke Guideline #1. See my initial post. I don't know about census data. Census data isn't in the videos. This isn't a "debate anything about the holocaust" thread. Start that thread if you'd like, but this isn't it.

We won't ride your train nor take your showers.

[Caustic Logic]

Crap on rules
Hi Caustic Logic,
<snip>

Yes, propaganda draws on such powerful stories. The Nazi shrunken head is similar: the Nazis were savages. They were outside of civilized people, hence they made shrunken heads.

Don't get too giddy there now.

Here's why Yankel Wiernik is important:

#1. most important Treblinka eyewitness.
Well that's a qualitative judgment. He's certainly not the only witness. Though it does appear theis story has a hazy ending with open questions.
Another group, dubbed the Totenjuden (the Jews of death), lived in Treblinka II and were forced to carry the dead from the gas chamber to the furnaces, sift through the ashes of the dead, grind up recognizable parts, and bury the ashes in pits. wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treblinka_extermination_camp) cites Steiner and Weaver. Was Wiernick their source? How about Vasily Grossman? How about the other 40 or so known survivors? The on-site imspections that found human bones and ashes filling pits around the camp? Even just for the story of Treblinka, this one camp affected by Wierick's testimony, we have numerous points of evidence collectively showing a Nazi death camp that was just that - a DEATH CAMP and nothing else - counter to your implications they were all about anything but death.

Picking Treblinka is both an ironic and an obvious choice for you to target.

#2. Wrote a book-length memoir before the war was over. (well he's not the writer but I can't get into that.)
#4. The next book-length memoir was written in the 1980's by Samuel Wilenberg.
#5. Treblinka is considered the second most major holocaust camp, with Auschwitz being first.
Is it now? Wikipedia says "According to the Germans and the guards who were stationed in Treblinka, the figure ranges from 1,000,000 to 1,400,000" people killed there. Sounds like a lot. Wierneck told them to say it, didn't he?

#6 Major holocaust scholars like Raul Hilberg use Wiernik as a source which makes one question their integrity.
Mmmaybe. You have bigger problems tho.

#7 Was a witness at the Eichmann trial.
All right, so Eichman's innocent?

Oh, and I think benzene is a term used to mean gasoline in Europe sometimes.
Ah. That's funny cause earlier you said " So "sprinkled with benzine" becomes "soaked in gasoline" thereby suiting the rebuttal author." as if it were a bad thing. It is a different highly flammable liquid aromatic hydrocarbon.

Paneer (is that type?)

[Chaos]

I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that? I made it clear that I wanted your views on videos. I asked for this communities' views on videos and instead got people asking me about census data, and even a person joining the forum who refused to look at any videos but who wanted to debate me.

You´re not here to debate?

Fine. Then, stop spamming this place with your lies and leave!

This is a discussion forum - a place in which to discuss things. This is not a place to state your views and then forbid others from questioning them. If you have invested too much, emotionally, in worshipping the Nazis, then you should not visit places in which your views will be challenged.

Edited for civility

[Caustic Logic]

Gorgonzola

Hey, he copied me, with a time-machine...

I beg forgiveness! :wackynotworthy:

[sleepy_lioness]

You know what? I don't care if you can produce 100, or even 1000 alleged 'witnesses' of the Holocaust who are mistaken or lying about their experiences. We know that there are lots of sad people out there, including those who make up stories of trauma for their own psychological reasons.

I don't care.

The convergence of evidence that the holocaust happened is so huge that picking holes in individual alleged witness stories makes no difference.

I could lie right now and say that I was on the tube train that got bombed on July 7, and I saw people leaping over 9 foot barriers to escape. Would that mean that the bombings didn't happen?

Red Leicester

[Caustic Logic]

Red Leicester

Crikey, that's just about what I meant as well.

I hope I haven't strayed too far from any nefariousplans I wasn't clued into. I steadfastly refuse the video links, but I am willing to "play the game" a little.

Proposed ammendment to cheese rule - preface it with a dash so it looks even more like a signature than it already does (Red understands, right?).

- Mozz Arella

ETA: someone add thread tag "failed marketing techniques"

[Nick Terry]

Hi Caustic Logic,

It was somewhat decided to talk about episode 1 of One Third of the Holocaust, and I was goaded into writing a rebuttal to the holocaustControversies rebuttal of episode 1. Yankel Wiernik is largely the topic of that episode. Notice how no one else here even mentioned Wiernik? Nick Terry and Woolf and the HolocaustControversies team believe he's a credible witness, though they're not inclined to mention him here. They skipped him when replying to my "rebuttal to a rebuttal" though I discussed him and included a story from his book.

Oh dear sweet Jesus Christ, what is it with you and your seemingly uncontrollable urge to draw ludicrous conclusions from how discussion flows here?

You were engaged over Wiernik by other posters. Whether or not specific posters commented on those portions of your post says nothing. You seem to want to conjure up instant-gratification, short-term victories for yourself - 'see! NICK TERRY didn't reply to my rebuttal for a WHOLE TWELVE HOURS!'

I didn't write the HC rebuttal; that was Roberto Muehlenkamp. I predict by the time Roberto is back from a well-earned holiday, that you will have fled this thread. He'll point out, by the way, that you have simply repeated some of the original claims in the video and have clearly NOT responded to the rebuttal at HC.

All in all, we're back to your magical thinking about being 'rebutted' again, aren't we? Actually, you have been rebutted by several posters in this thread on some absolutely basic, crucial points - I can make the same points, and maybe even make some better, but crowing that so-and-so didn't respond is entirely a distraction.

Saying that Wiernik is the '#1 witness' is typical Holocaust denial fallacy-mongering. Only if Wiernik were the sole witness would such a judgement even vaguely matter.

Clearly, you have no familiarity or experience with assessing witness evidence according to the conventional rules of historiography, journalism or the law, three professions whose practice would entirely collapse overnight if they applied the apparent standards of evidence utilised by Holocaust deniers.

Wiernik isn't even the sole witness from before the liberation of the Treblinka area in the summer of 1944. Does denierbud or his earthly representative have any idea how many pre-August 1944 accounts of Treblinka were written down by escapees? I predict the answer is no.

#4 is irrelevant, since there were several other accounts of the length of Wiernik's written down in the 1940s, just not published then. Those accounts were written by witnesses who like Wiernik gave testimony in proceedings like the Eichmann trial, but not necessarily only the Eichmann trial. #7 was already exposed as gibberish in the original HC rebuttal, since Roberto discussed Wiernik's testimony in the West German investigation leading to the Kurt Franz trial in Duesseldorf. One might add that Wiernik was also interviewed in the 1945 Polish investigation.

#6 is also a fallacy, as explained before in the rebuttal to denierbud's drivel, and as reiterated here in this thread. The fallacy, by the way, is well-poisoning, and once again if applied more generally, would empty the jails of every civilised country where witness testimony is used as the CHIEF means of convicting suspects indicted in court.

Nobody, but nobody, applies the Law of 100% except conspiraloons.

I'm going to come back to your aside in #2. It seems you are in the grip of the denier irreducible delusion that you can attack the 'chief witness' and the rest of it must crumble, a piece of illogic that is usually accompanied by baseless conspiracy theories about how one account must have been the 'template' for the others.

Well, budly, that's a big problem since it appears that your gurus have different ideas of who the template 'must' be. Mattogno says Gerstein, handwaving away Wiernik entirely on that point. Crowell IGNORES Wiernik entirely, and fingers the interrogation of a Trawniki guard named Leleko as the 'source' for all subsequent Belzec/Sobibor/Treblinka testimonies, pretending that the aforementioned pre-liberation accounts don't exist.

Tell us, was it Rachel Auerbach who was busy forging Wiernik's account from her place in hiding along with preparing the Stroop report and no doubt much else?


AS AN ASIDE (hint, hint, budly), just to illustrate the depths of denier lunacy on this score, I'll point out that as is easily established by looking Leleko's testimony up on Nizkor, he was interrogated by the 2nd Belorussian Front in February 1945. Do deniers like Crowell have any idea of the route taken by 2nd Belorussian Front and which camps it did and did not liberate? 2nd Belorussian Front was aimed at Gdansk/Danzig, having travelled through East Prussia, and went nowhere near any of Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka.

Of course, in CT logic, a backwater institution is automatically going to be plugged into the Centre and automatically produce flawless 'lie-witness testimony' - so flawless, in fact, that a conspiraloon like Crowell claims that the testimony, which never came to light until 1979 in the west, must have been the template for everything that followed, even the vaunted Gerstein testimony given to... the French.

On that note:

- Camembert

[Nick Terry]

Just to confuse budly, I'm making this a placeholder post for when I deal with the other points raised above that I have not already answered - or rather in many cases re-deal with them, since they seem to have been answered by others.

But I guess budly will have to claim his victories wherever he can - so there ya go, crow loudly: 'NICK TERRY can't respond to all denierbud's points in ONE GO, what kind of lame-ass debunker is he?'

- Brie

[JimBenArm]

>chortle<
Nick, you forgot to start that with a "C"! -2 points, and you have to go back to the start of the internet!

Colby!

[Nick Terry]

Chokaaaay, I'm back. Scrambled egg on toast brunch was awesome. Budly is evidently still in his coffin, and what better time to finish off the discussion when the vamp-ie is sleeping?

So, what do we have left? The basic problem shared by denierbud and his earthly representative is that they desperately want to "discredit" witnesses, forgetting that in other contexts, their own belief system, revisionism, hierarchises witnesses beneath documentary and physical evidence.

And that's where things get readlly interesting. They're right - documents and physical evidence trump witnesses, which is why absolutely no nitpicking of how Wiernik describes the 'Scheissmeister' can ever succeed in discrediting the totality of the evidence for Treblinka.

This 'trumping' is moreover rather interesting since it functions much like a latched door that can swing one way but not another. We might take a witnesses' word describing the background conditions to how a document was composed, and what was left out, but we'd rarely accept an outright denial in court that a document doesn't say what was put in to it. And a witness sinning against the CT Law of 100% on how someone was killed and cremated cannot really overcome the documents and physical evidence proving that people were killed and cremated.

And that, oh earthly representative of the mighty denierbud, is why none of you denier dudes are taken very seriously, because you spin the plate and start at the point of seeming least resistance, then pyramid your nitpicks into 'proof' that the harder stuff must have been faked also. While it provides aficionados of wrongness such as myself with hours of warped entertainment, it just doesn't cut it in the real world.

The simple fact is that every single witness, SS or prisoner, to the goings-on inside Treblinka could have been killed and we'd still be able to prove it was a death camp for the extermination of Jews. This is something called a thought experiment; in reality the world doesn't work like that. It is always much nicer to have witnesses as they can tell you things about what happened that other sources cannot. Society's faith in the ability of witnesses to tell as much of the truth as is humanly possible, however, is not a license for CT unreasoning from 'anomalies' in witness statements to handwaving away the hard stuff.

Let's remind ourselves that when Treblinka was overrun by the Soviets, they found a layer of ash the size of several football fields. A year later, the site was so devastated by frantic Polish grave-robbers digging into the cremains that the stench was miasmic and body-parts were strewn all over. Even if all witnesses had been bumped off in order to be silenced, then as incriminating sites go, this was surely one of them. The only way around this evidence is for denierbud, budly, Uncle Tom Cobley and all to allege that Evil Soviets (with the not-always-vocalised addendum of: 'controlled by Even More Evil Joooos') faked their reports, the ash was just some leftovers from the camp kitchen (or something) and the photos of said wasteland don't prove anything.

Yeah, right.

The problem is compounded when we turn to the documents. Little noticed by deniers, who rarely seem to read German documents, being a) usually ignorant of the German language and b) fooled by the fact that their gurus usually avoid the really nasty ones like the plague, there is a pretty firm chain of documents proving that the three camps of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were extermination sites. Formal 'proofs' can be achieved in as little as four documents, and there are actually several such 'proofs'. Note that historiography is not a matter of mathematics, so I am speaking metaphorically. Unlike maths, historians put as many documents into the equation as possible, so don't think it's just about four documents.

You can even use said documents to infer very strongly that the means of execution involved gassing via engine exhaust. As denierbud and his earthly representative have not seemingly discussed any of these documents - least, I really don't remember the HC rebuttals dealing with denierbud's take on any of the nasty ones - I will confine myself to mentioning two documents. By themselves they pose serious problems for denial. And they are far from alone.

The first is Globocnik's report to Herff on the Aktion Reinhard personnel. This identifies 92 men transferred from T4, the Nazi euthanasia program, which involved six 'institutes' equipped with bottled carbon monoxide gas chambers. Let's stop and ponder this for a minute in the light of denier claims that these camps were 'only' transit camps. So here we are in 1942, and the Polish underground press is raising a hue and cry about how Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka are death camps.

The Polish underground just happens to pick at random three out of the hundreds if not thousands of camps in occupied Poland to which 92 killers experienced in murdering people using gas chambers are sent?

What, honestly, are the chances that out of all the thousands of camps in existence in the whole of Nazi occupied Europe, three camps get picked which are 'actually' transit camps and the Nazis happen to send 92 experienced gas chamber killers to them in order to supervise... an 'evacuation'? What, did RuSHA and the RKF or even just the regular police have such a manpower shortage that the bottom of the barrel was these dregs from T4?

I'd love to see a denier explain that one to me one day, without resorting to the 'forgery!' card, which as they ought to have realised by now, is code for 'I am absolutely unable to explain this one away, therefore the evidence must have been faked so that I can maintain my irreducible delusion'. Least, that's how it looks to the rest of us.

Of course, if the denier does play the forgery/fabrication card, then they have the wee problem of adding six further sites and about 30 more trials plus 100s more witnesses - all German - who must have been 'coerced' or 'induced' or 'bribed' to say things that were not true. Since moreover there are 70,000 medical files and the greater part of 70,000 death certificates - with fake CODs - signalling the bureaucratic demise of the 70,000 victims, it's not even possible to claim that people were not killed in the euthanasia centres.

Curses, foiled again! :mad:

So, onto the next document. It's a doozy, and it connects with Wiernik's testimony as well as the testimony of other AR camp survivors. There's another personnel document giving the names of the AR camp staff who are being promoted in 1943. Need I point out that the same names appear in the 1944-45 testimonies of AR camp survivors, including Wiernik's memoir, and that the document was only discovered some time later - probably in the late 1940s - in the SS personnel files housed in what became the Berlin Document Center.

Nota bene, the BDC was not under the control of the Poles, Soviets or even the Jooos, although I wouldn't be surprised if deniers might wish to fall back on the last one and allege hoax by ethnic telepathy, which would surely warrant a submission to Randi's $1 million challenge.

Enough of that. While I have great faith in the ability of conspiracists to reason like small children caught in a lie and improvise explanations for why their hands are in the cookie-jar, let's be realistic here, and not make the CT too baroque, shall we?

The rational conclusions, requiring no ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses, are as follows:

1. The named SS men served in the Aktion Reinhard camps
2. The fact that the prisoners could remember the same names means the prisoners also spent time in the selfsame camps

This seemingly small point does something that denierbud and his earthly representative seem blithely unaware might be possible: it corroborates Wiernik's testimony on a crucial detail - the identity of some of the perpetrators. The nature of witness testimony is invariably such that the overwhelming majority of a testimony cannot be so corroborated, but very often a certain amount can. And this gives the rational human being greater confidence in the totality of the testimony. Some scholars of witness evidence such as the philosopher Douglas Walton (albeit quoting someone else whose name I forget) even go so far as to label this type of corroboration as 'convergence'. A document and a witness both converge on the same conclusion. (Note that this discussion of 'convergence' is quite separate to Michael Shermer's invocation of the term.)

The other form of corroboration is of course the more usual one of multiple witnesses saying the same thing. I do believe that Roberto pointed out that the by chosen examples proffered by denierbud as arguments to personal incredulity - the Scheissmeister, the burning of the bodies - are described by multiple witnesses. That means, dear denier, that it is a methodological FAIL to consider one witness alone and ignore the corroboration.

By all means, examine the totality of each individual witness statement, but as neither denierbud nor his earthly representative appear to have done that - ignoring Wiernik's extensive description of the camp's Goffmann-on-acid and Foucault-on-smack social orrganisation, the naming of other prisoners and camp guards, the discriminating judgement of character shown by Wiernik, who singles out Germans and Ukrainians for praise due to their genuine or relative humanity and kindness - we can await the day when such an examination is ever performed by a Holocaust denier. Unlike budly's childish 'you can't debunk me nur nur nur' declarations of victory, I feel we are on firmer ground in predicting that doomsday will arrive first, since such an examination of the entirety of a witnesses's testimony has never happened in over 64 years of erstwhile 'revisionism'. They prefer, after all, to glom onto the bits that discuss gas chambers and body-incineration.

The other route is to examine the totality of witness statements plural on a specific point. Again, we can safely await the day when a denier manages to round up all the witness statements on a particular point - not even the vaunted Guru Mattogno has done that - and presents something resembling a coherent, reasoned argument. Hasn't happened yet, is unlikely to happen any time soon, and certainly didn't happen in Episode 1 of 'One Third of the Holocaust'.

That leaves the small parts which only Wiernik mentions. Nobody else describes him being shot in the breakout, or the girl 'leaping' the fence, which amounts to just... two... infelicitous phrasings that a person not in the grip of a mind-numbingly bovine literalism would generally regard as not terribly significant.

But wait! Note the methodological hypocrisy of denial here. Witness testimonies are chiefly to be examined for what they say about the really naughty stuff, everything else is just padding and can be ignored, except when they chance upon something that might trigger personal incredulity, in which case it can be lifted out of context and waved around the internet enough times to qualify as an entry in Denier Bu****** Bingo.

Note also the confusion in their tiny little minds as to what constitutes a narrative or an account. Instead of looking at the whole story told by the witness, they batten on to the 'core' parts, discombobulating the actual narrative presented by someone like Wiernik, and thus strawman it hopelessly.

Wiernik's testimony describes a hellish camp for the selected Sonderkommandos. Let's conduct another thought experiment and excise gassing from the picture momentarily. Is that the ultimate target? Is the only problem with the actual history of Treblinka the annoyingly inconvenient fact that everyone describes it as an extermination camp? In which case where are the seams and joins showing how and where 'gassing' was grafted on to the genuine, correct tale of a hellish labour camp?

Or is any description of individual sadism by individual Germans unacceptable to the deniers? In which case they cannot reason backwards from the really big-ticket item to pretend that the smaller cruelties did not happen either, since human nature is what it is, and we have quite enough examples of civilised nations - in fact, all of them - acting worse than a pack of rabid dogs on various occasions in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Trying to claim that the Third Reich was an exception is just the No True German fallacy, trying to claim it couldn't have happened to Jews is belied by the behaviour of the Nazi to everyone else in Europe, and/or is barely veiled antisemitism.

Maybe I'll dump another Katyusha salvo on your head in due course, Mr Budly. But for now I'll finish off with this following gnomic, creepy-speaking-in-maybe-third-person remark

Then the point is made that by episode 29, Denierbud has found a book that has Wiernik's account and was thus being dishonest about how hard it was to find. But maybe Denierbud didn't know about Donat's book when he made episode 1, but knew about it by episode 29. A 4-hour video takes years to makeTo which one has to reply quite simply: has denierbud never heard of editing facilities?

Ta-ra for now.

- Edam

[Horatius]

Crikey, that Nick Terry does a good smack down!

Now, having googled the term "the Scheissmeister" that Nick refers to, I've learned a bit about this thing Budly has referred to:

Can a witness be discredited? Not according to this explanation. An obviously fraudulent eyewitnesses like Yankel Weirnik who claimed a guy dressed as a clown with an alarm clock tied around his neck, timed people going to the bathroom at Treblinka isn't discredited by saying such a ridiculous thing.



This lead me to an excerpt of the book "Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps" By Yitzhak Arad:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=QpAgHYTPRz0C&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=the+Scheissmeister&source=bl&ots=EEeQBMR-w-&sig=j2k4kakufAlD14WmDGyyhoC2B-Q&hl=en&ei=3kWNSqnqB8W_lAfahKmhDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false


I haven't time to type it in right now, but it provides a perfectly reasonable explanation of this "ridiculous" story.


So, once again, Budly's opinions smell like Limburger.

[Eddie Dane]

Hi Budly,

What a relief to learn that that whole nasty Holocaust thingy didn't happen.

Say, nearly the whole family from my mum's side was deported during the war and never came back.

And since you seem to be on good footing with a some super-duper historical specialists, I'd like to ask you a favour. Can you get in touch with these guys and ask them where my family (or rather, their many descendants) are hiding to perpetuate the great Zionist lie?

My grandfathers youngest kid was twelve when the got deported, it would be really cool if we could meet him.

And imagine how my grandpa was ahead of his time, getting that wrist tattoo in those days. Makes me wonder if he had a piercing

Boy, I can't wait to give my mother the good news. this will really cheer her up.

Ta ta trollboy.

-Gouda

[Lonewulf]

Hi Budly,

What a relief to learn that that whole nasty Holocaust thingy didn't happen.

Say, nearly the whole family from my mum's side was deported during the war and never came back.

And since you seem to be on good footing with a some super-duper historical specialists, I'd like to ask you a favour. Can you get in touch with these guys and ask them where my family (or rather, their many descendants) are hiding to perpetuate the great Zionist lie?

My grandfathers youngest kid was twelve when the got deported, it would be really cool if we could meet him.

And imagine how my grandpa was ahead of his time, getting that wrist tattoo in those days. Makes me wonder if he had a piercing

Boy, I can't wait to give my mother the good news. this will really cheer her up.

Ta ta trollboy.

-Gouda

This.

This should be quoted to every single Holocaust Denier.

It shows just how much of scum they are, and shows just why their "you're attacking me just for my viewpoint!" arguments are worthless.


ETA: Brie

[ElMondoHummus]

Velveeta is a cheese? I have my doubts that it's actually a food, frankly.

Actually, this was my way of parodying the fact that the OPer attempted to set artificial rules restricting the debate. The fact of the matter is, the veracity of the videos is determined by precisely the sort of external information the OPer calls foul on, so such points are in fact eminently on topic. Contrary to what the original poster tries to establish.

And the JoeyD, bless his soul, gave me a perfect way to show my contempt for the OPer by "cheesing" this thread. Instead of posting the luscious, savory examples that I myself lovingly use in dishes like Welsh Rarebit :drool:, I instead parody the setting of "rules" by going wide and far to choose only semidigestible cheese-like products that only superficially bear resemblence to the genuine article.

It's sort of performance art. As well as a dose of smart alecky-ness. But all in keeping with JoeyD's quite perceptive observation that this thread really needed a "cheesing", like others need a kittening or a recipe-festing. Someone who comes out and openly embraces the fact that he's a holocaust denier, then tries to establish faux-history as fact really needs a comeuppance. Cheesing is a perfectly appropriate way to go about it, IMHO.

Anyway, to stay in the spirit of things: Whiz. Yeah, I said it. Cheese Whiz. Take that, damned thread!

[headscratcher4]

Hi Budly,

What a relief to learn that that whole nasty Holocaust thingy didn't happen.

Say, nearly the whole family from my mum's side was deported during the war and never came back.

And since you seem to be on good footing with a some super-duper historical specialists, I'd like to ask you a favour. Can you get in touch with these guys and ask them where my family (or rather, their many descendants) are hiding to perpetuate the great Zionist lie?

My grandfathers youngest kid was twelve when the got deported, it would be really cool if we could meet him.

And imagine how my grandpa was ahead of his time, getting that wrist tattoo in those days. Makes me wonder if he had a piercing

Boy, I can't wait to give my mother the good news. this will really cheer her up.

Ta ta trollboy.

-Gouda

Well you know, they may have died from Typhoid...because the allied invasion of Europe and the Soviet expulsion of Germany from Russia made it difficult for the otherwise kindly, well intentioned SS to supply the camps that they just happened to have deported millions of otherwise non-combatant men, women and children.

Most deaths, you understand, were caused by typhoid. Its a really brutal disease -- especially in transit camps.

On the other hand...most of them are probably lived through the war, moved to Isreal (or New York) and than made up stories of Nazi atrocities...along with the other lies perpertraited by Russian POWs, Polish and Slav civilian populations, gypsys, the French, the Danes, The Dutch, the Italians and all of those other groups who didn't understand the otherwise peaceful motives of the German Army in invading and occupying their countries.

Here is a photo of Ukrainian Jews dying of Typhoid.

http://www.pariswerlin.com/images/photos/nigel/holocaust.jpg

Now, if that doesn't put your mind at ease with respect to the motive of Bud and his denier pals, you just don't have an open mind...

BTW: I'm sure this violates both rule 1 & 2....not to mention a whole other lot of rules....

[16.5]

Most holocaust believers think that cremation ovens is proof of genocide. It's not. Most small cities had cremation ovens too. Some concentration camps were the size of small cities. For instance Buchenwald had cremation ovens and holocaust historians will tell you that it wasn't a "deathcamp" nor was there an attempt to exterminate Jews there, nor were the majority of people in the camp Jewish.

Confidentially, I do enjoy when you get your pants in twist, and revert to pointing out that not all the Nazi concentration camps were death camps. Nor were the majority "jewish"? Hey champ, nobody said that your impotent Austrian Corporal only killed Jews. He was an equal opportunity psychopath.

Venezuelan Beaver Cheese

[Dave Rogers]

Come on, old chap, that one didn't start with a 'C'.

Nick, I mentioned your work in the "Best thing you've ever seen on the forum" thread over in Community. The above is more of the same. I'm nominating post #228 because at least one post should be nominated, but frankly virtually everything you write is as welcome as the finest Camembert.

[JimBenArm]

Crickey!
And budly's posts have more holes than...







...yes, you guessed it, swiss cheese!

[Budly]

QUESTION: What's that leftover piece of meat in your refrigerator from last night's dinner called?

ANSWER: A torch if lit.

Yankel Wiernik said:
1) Bodies burn like wood, but women's bodies burn better (due to fat eventhough everyone in the Warsaw ghetto was supposedly starving) and were thus used as kindling.
2) That a naked woman leaped a 9 and a half foot high fence, grabbed a gun from a Ukrainian guard and shot two guards.
3) That a Ukrainian guard shot him but the bullet went through his clothes but didn't pierce his skin, it just left a mark.

This is paranormal stuff that humbles Uri Geller's claims.

Nick Terry can write paragraph after paragraph without straightforwardly saying whether he believes Wiernik is a credible inmate eyewitness. Rather he changes the subject.

The Myth is strong because it's perceived as hateful. In reality it's anti-war and anti-colonialism. 200 years ago, atheism was also perceived as hateful. People who promoted it were "peddling."

The myth is strong because when one thing is focused on (such as episode 1 (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/one_third_of_the_holocaust.html) and Yankel Wiernik) people will just jump to a new topic, and the next topic and the next topic. They will change the subject to some other reason of why they're sure it happened. Nick Terry did that by suddenly going into physical evidence found by the honest Stalinist government which had no axe to grind whatsoever. That physical evidence is strongly debunked in this book. (http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/treblinka.pdf)

[JimBenArm]

Cooties!
It's good to know that the entire myth of the Holocaust rests upon the validity of Yankel Wiernik. And here I thought all that other evidence was what I was basing my belief on! I'm such a fool!
Oh, Parmesan!

[16.5]

QUESTION: What's that leftover piece of meat in your refrigerator from last night's dinner called?

ANSWER: A torch if lit.

Yankel Wiernik said:
1) Bodies burn like wood, but women's bodies burn better (due to fat eventhough everyone in the Warsaw ghetto was supposedly starving) and were thus used as kindling.
2) That a naked woman leaped a 9 and a half foot high fence, grabbed a gun from a Ukrainian guard and shot two guards.
3) That a Ukrainian guard shot him but the bullet went through his clothes but didn't pierce his skin, it just left a mark.

This is paranormal stuff that humbles Uri Geller's claims.

Nick Terry can write paragraph after paragraph without straightforwardly saying whether he believes Wiernik is a credible inmate eyewitness.

The Myth is strong because it's perceived as hateful. In reality it's anti-war and anti-colonialism. 200 years ago, atheism was also perceived as hateful.

The myth is strong because when one thing is focused on (such as episode 1 and Yankel Wiernik) people will just jump to a new topic, and the next topic and the next topic. They will change the subject to some other reason of why they're sure it happened. Nick Terry did that by suddenly going into physical evidence of the honest Stalinist government, which is strongly debunked in this book. (http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/treblinka.pdf)

CHEERIO BUDLY

You broke SEVERAL guidelines, including not starting your post with a C, and not mentioning a cheese at the end.

By the way, you gonna go see Inglorious Basterds this weekend? I hear your impotent pal gets shot right in the face.

I'll probably go see it tomorrow, and then hike on up to the Holocaust Musuem outside Chicago (in Skokie, in fact) and share your holocaust denial stories with the people that against all odds survived the death camps, and the WWII soldiers that liberated some of the camps.

Good old American Cheese

[Horatius]

3) That a Ukrainian guard shot him but the bullet went through his clothes but didn't pierce his skin, it just left a mark.

This is paranormal stuff that humbles Uri Geller's claims.




Codswallop.


I'm on lunch, so I'll just deal with this bit, as I have some personal knowledge to impart.

Quoting from the previously cited discussion (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html) of your claims:

First of all, Wiernik’s pursuer did not fire a rifle, but a pistol, and he fired it from some distance away. It doesn’t take much familiarity with firearms to know that pistols are short-range weapons, ineffective at longer distances. For instance, the Walther P38 pistol used by German armed forces in World War II had an effective range of about 50 meters. A weapon’s effective range is the distance at which a weapon may be expected to fire accurately to inflict damage or casualties. So if Wiernik’s pursuer was carrying a Walther P38 and fired it from a distance of more than 50 meters, it is possible that, when it reached its target, the bullet no longer had sufficient force to go through all of Wiernik’s clothing (for understandable reasons, Wiernik may have been rather thickly clad on that day of his escape, and he mentions in the same chapter that «On that day, however, the men wore their clothes under their overalls. Before escaping, they would have to get rid of the overalls, which would have given them away at once.») and wound him seriously. The extent to which the bullet could still penetrate Wiernik’s body would also depend on what part of the shoulder it hit. If it was the shoulder blade – which is probable, as Wiernik had his back turned towards the shooter – the bullet was less likely to go any further beyond its effective range than it if had hit flesh.


Now, here's the personal information part. I have an old friend, who's father was a member of the RCMP. This was back when there was debate on replacing the standard issue police .38. This officer made the point that, in winter, a person wearing a parka, as likely as not, would be able to take a shot from such a weapon without the bullet penetrating to the skin. He held this out as a problem for a police weapon issued in country that is winter for so much of the year.

So, far from being some paranormal Uri Geller-like claim, this claim is in fact entirely consistent with information I have independently received, in an entirely unrelated context. That's that "convergence of evidence" thing people like Nick Terry keep carrying on about.

Now if you'll excuse me, it is lunch, and this Feta ain't going to eat itself.

[Horatius]

I'll probably go see it tomorrow, and then hike on up to the Holocaust Musuem outside Chicago (in Skokie, in fact) and share your holocaust denial stories with the people that against all odds survived the death camps, and the WWII soldiers that liberated some of the camps.




Coolness! If you see any Illinois Nazis along the way, could you please run them off a bridge for me?

In any case, Havarti fun!

[headscratcher4]

Craptastick...nothing to add, just wanted to start a post with a C

[Dave Rogers]

Couldn't you have ended it with a cheese, like for example Red Leicester?

[dudalb]

What is it, lately? Not only have MAgZ and Mondial returned ,but new Holocaust Deniers are popping up here like flies.
Japanese Sage Derby.

[Budly]

The reason we're talking about Wiernik is he's the subject of episode 1. It's not me just picking a favorite fraudulent eyewitness. "Physical Evidence" happens to be a later chapter in the video.

[Horatius]

The reason we're talking about Wiernik is he's the subject of episode 1. It's not me just picking a favorite fraudulent eyewitness. "Physical Evidence" happens to be a later chapter in the video.


Could you explain who you are responding to with this comment? And please remember to end with a cheese, like gouda.

[headscratcher4]

Couldn't you have ended it with a cheese, like for example Red Leicester?

Kraft American Cheese food singles...

[16.5]

Coolness! If you see any Illinois Nazis along the way, could you please run them off a bridge for me?

In any case, Havarti fun!

Certainly.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the leader of the Illinois Nazis recently convicted of child molestation?

Brie, Roquefort, Pont-l'Évêque, Port Salut, Savoyard, Saint-Paulin, Carre-de-L'Est, Bresse-Bleu, Boursin

[Gravy]

The reason nobody can refute the video Buchenwald (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/index.html), is because they can't. Notice how Woolf and Nick Terry say they haven't seen it? Notice how no one at holocaustControversies or NIZKOR has ever rebutted anything in it? Notice how no poster here has commented on it?

With 5 pages of posts and 1800 views (though half are mine, LOL) people here have watched the videos. But when you start agreeing with holocaust denial positions, you keep quiet. It's taboo.You really suck at this. Can't you find a hobby that you're good at, and that isn't an insult to rational, intelligent people?

Also, Cahill's Irish Porter.

[JimBenArm]

Core.
I don't know, Gravy. I think he's an excellent Holocaust denier. He just sucks at reality, that's all!
Bleu.