Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

Double wank and shit chips
Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#1

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:55 am

I am willing to discuss in earnest any points raised by "revisionists" wrt the holocaust, but only if a serious historical approach is taken.

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#2

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:01 am

I will respond to gurugeorge's arguments one by one. This one from the undead thread first:

gurugeorge wrote:Yet the curious thing is that initially the Allies did claim that the Western camps were death camps too. Initially, the narrative was that ALL all the camps were both work camps and death camps and that almost all of them had gas chambers. That was scaled back to "oops, it was just the Eastern camps" only relatively recently.

Your argument as I understand it:

P1. The Western Allies initially claimed the KZ in the the West (i.e., Dachau) were extermination camps with gas chambers;
P2. In truth, they were not pure extermination camps, and did not have gas chambers;
C3. Therefore, gas chambers must be an hoax / Soviet propaganda;
C4. Therefore, no KZ, including those in the East, were extermination camps with gas chambers.

P5. To kill 6 million Jews, mass gassing of prisoners would have been required;
P6. There was no extensive use of gas chambers;
C7. Therefore, the nazis did not kill 6 million Jews.


You insinuate intentional mendacity. Yet a much simpler and more rational explanation exists. The Western allies were aware of reports of mass exterminations being conducted in the East, including accounts of gassings. When they liberated Dachau & Buchenwald they found horrific conditions, with skeletal prisoners, heaps of dead bodies, and the remains of pyres. This initial impression alone would explain the belief that these were extermination camps.

Moreover, that the nature of KZ in the West has been misrepresented in no way negates the overwhelming evidence of mass exterminations in the East. I concede P1 & P2. P5 is unsubstantiated. Your conclusions are specious extrapolations. Your argument is thus illogical, and rejected.

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#3

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:02 am

gurugeorge wrote:Re. eyewitness accounts of guards: the Höss testimony, which is the key guard testimony (it's even quoted in the article you link) looks like it was extracted under torture.
This is classic sniping. You seek to cast aspersion on Höss' testimony, then by extrapolation disproving anything and everything he stated. Yet the case for widespread gassing does not rely solely on Höss -- numerous first-hand accounts exist.

How do you explain away, for example, the testimony of Kurt Gerstein, an anti-nazi who infiltrated the SS, witnessed gassings, and was even responsible for supplying Höss with Zyklon B? Gerstein freely reported on the gassings, first to a Swedish diplomat, then to his french captors.

Or Oskar Gröning, an Auschwitz camp guard responsible for the processing of new arrivals, who considers himself "morally guilty" and has freely testified at several trials, and who has described in great detail the gassings he witnessed?

Re. eyewitness accounts of prisoners: many of those have fallen apart down the years. A lot of it seems to be hearsay, particularly the recurring theme of people being taken away to be executed. One interesting example: a survivor guest on the Montel Williams show that had David Cole and Mark Weber making the revisionist case in the mid 90s, claimed his brother had been taken away and executed, he was really sure of it. He was later joyously reunited with his brother on a return appearance on the Williams show; and his brother had thought he had been taken away and executed!
Your argument as I understand it:
P1. One holocaust survivor believed his brother had died, but was wrong;
C2. Therefore, holocaust survivor testimony is unreliable;
C3. Therefore, the nazis did not murder 6 million jews.

This would be completely laughable, were it not so callously insulting to the survivors. I've personally known three survivors who lost most of their families, including one woman whose sister was killed right in front of her. No surprise reunion on the Montel Williams Show for her, I'm afraid.

No self-respecting skeptic would engage in such sophistry as this. If you want to assert that most European Jews survived the holocaust, then locate the goddamn survivors.

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#4

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:33 am

gurugeorge wrote:... there is also eyewitness testimony from survivors that does not corroborate the gas chambers narrative - eyewitness testimony that corroborates that Auschwitz was in fact precisely what it said on the gates, a work camp.
Citations, please.
What proportion of eyewitness accounts decribe Auschwitz as Tommy's Holiday a work camp, vs. a death camp?
What proportion of supposed eyewitness accounts, describing family members being executed or dying, have been proven false or merely "hearsay"?

NB: Are you aware that the nazis operated three types of camps (other than PoW camps)?
- Arbeitslagern: true "work" camps with tolerable conditions, housing impressed foreign workers;
- Konzentrazionlagern ("KZ"): concentration camps for political prisoners and undesirables, with brutal conditions and many deaths through malnutrition, overwork, and disease;
- Vernichtungslagern: true extermination camps; either converted KZ or bespoke, with most prisoners killed immediately upon arrival, the remainder primarily employed in supporting the extermination operations.

What you describe as 'work' camps were, in fact, KZ.

There were, though, various "work camps", such as the caves in which the V-2 was built, with horrific conditions, in which nearly all the prisoners were quickly worked to death.

Note also that conditions at camps worsened as the war progressed, and near the end many prisoners died in forced marches. My ex-wife's aunt witnessed one such march, most likely from Theresienstadt, a "model" camp with such 'good' conditions it was used for propaganda purposes.

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#5

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:48 am

Obviously you don't need that degree of care with de-lousing doses of the stuff. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that you would if you were using the stuff in lethal doses, since the gas is hyper-flammable.
Do you have evidence that delousing involved lower 'doses' than what was allegedly used to gas prisoners? How much, exactly, is the difference between a 'delousing' dose vs. a 'jew-killing' one?

No, Prussic acid is lethal in pretty much any dose. Which is why the manufacturer of Zyklon B included an eye irritant agent as a warning. A gas mask and gloves will protect you, though. Obviously, as that is what fumigators wore. Coincidently so did the camp guards.

You keep harping about its “hyper-flammability”. How was it beyond the capability of the SS to handle this stuff without blowing themselves up, when for 60 years folks had been safely fumigating ships and train cars and buildings with it?

TheMudbrooker
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#6

Post by TheMudbrooker » Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:29 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Obviously you don't need that degree of care with de-lousing doses of the stuff. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that you would if you were using the stuff in lethal doses, since the gas is hyper-flammable.
Do you have evidence that delousing involved lower 'doses' than what was allegedly used to gas prisoners? How much, exactly, is the difference between a 'delousing' dose vs. a 'jew-killing' one?

No, Prussic acid is lethal in pretty much any dose. Which is why the manufacturer of Zyklon B included an eye irritant agent as a warning. A gas mask and gloves will protect you, though. Obviously, as that is what fumigators wore. Coincidently so did the camp guards.

You keep harping about its “hyper-flammability”. How was it beyond the capability of the SS to handle this stuff without blowing themselves up, when for 60 years folks had been safely fumigating ships and train cars and buildings with it?
A little info about HCN in air, at 50 ppm it's fatal in about an hour without medical intervention. At 300 ppm it's fatal in about five minutes. According to witnesses the amount of Zyklon used in the gas chambers would have produced 3000-5000 ppm. The lower explosive limit (LEL) is 56,000 ppm. In other words, the Nazis would have had to use ten times an already greatly excessive amount for it to become flammable.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 9913
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#7

Post by Lsuoma » Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:45 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
gurugeorge wrote:Re. eyewitness accounts of guards: the Höss testimony, which is the key guard testimony (it's even quoted in the article you link) looks like it was extracted under torture.
This is classic sniping. You seek to cast aspersion on Höss' testimony, then by extrapolation disproving anything and everything he stated. Yet the case for widespread gassing does not rely solely on Höss -- numerous first-hand accounts exist.

How do you explain away, for example, the testimony of Kurt Gerstein, an anti-nazi who infiltrated the SS, witnessed gassings, and was even responsible for supplying Höss with Zyklon B? Gerstein freely reported on the gassings, first to a Swedish diplomat, then to his french captors.
https://www.everplans.com/sites/default ... ss-750.jpg

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#8

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:07 pm

TheMudbrooker wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Obviously you don't need that degree of care with de-lousing doses of the stuff. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that you would if you were using the stuff in lethal doses, since the gas is hyper-flammable.
Do you have evidence that delousing involved lower 'doses' than what was allegedly used to gas prisoners? How much, exactly, is the difference between a 'delousing' dose vs. a 'jew-killing' one?

No, Prussic acid is lethal in pretty much any dose. Which is why the manufacturer of Zyklon B included an eye irritant agent as a warning. A gas mask and gloves will protect you, though. Obviously, as that is what fumigators wore. Coincidently so did the camp guards.

You keep harping about its “hyper-flammability”. How was it beyond the capability of the SS to handle this stuff without blowing themselves up, when for 60 years folks had been safely fumigating ships and train cars and buildings with it?
A little info about HCN in air, at 50 ppm it's fatal in about an hour without medical intervention. At 300 ppm it's fatal in about five minutes. According to witnesses the amount of Zyklon used in the gas chambers would have produced 3000-5000 ppm. The lower explosive limit (LEL) is 56,000 ppm. In other words, the Nazis would have had to use ten times an already greatly excessive amount for it to become flammable.
Oh shit, george -- facts.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#9

Post by deLurch » Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:21 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I am willing to discuss in earnest any points raised by "revisionists" wrt the holocaust, but only if a serious historical approach is taken.
Hitler dindu nuffin.

He just innocently shunted millions of his own citizens into imprisonment camps. Is it his fault they had to hunt down and shoot the ones who wouldn't comply?

Also it appears the leading consensus among today's neo-nazis that it Hitler never gassed the Jews, but they sure wish they could do so now. So don't disparage them by saying that is something they did.

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#10

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:57 pm

gurugeorge wrote:The figure of "6 million" is also deeply suspicious in and of itself, since it was the stock figure for the estimate of the population of Jews in Europe through the early part of the 20th century (there are numerous newspaper articles from the 20s and 30s using that figure).
I dunno, that might have something to do with the fact that there were about 6 million jews in Europe exclusive of Russia.

The pre-war census figures are very extensive and complete, and a comprehensive tally was conducted after the war. They came up 6 million Jews short worldwide:

http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Fil ... istics.pdf

(There's a minor tabulation error in that report, so feel free to reject the entire work of the governments of the nations' of the world.)
tally.png
(60.55 KiB) Downloaded 305 times

As you can see, the missing European jews didn't show up anywhere else after the war. Of course, we can't rule out that they were wandering.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 9913
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#11

Post by Lsuoma » Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:09 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
gurugeorge wrote:The figure of "6 million" is also deeply suspicious in and of itself, since it was the stock figure for the estimate of the population of Jews in Europe through the early part of the 20th century (there are numerous newspaper articles from the 20s and 30s using that figure).
I dunno, that might have something to do with the fact that there were about 6 million jews in Europe exclusive of Russia.

The pre-war census figures are very extensive and complete, and a comprehensive tally was conducted after the war. They came up 6 million Jews short worldwide:

http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Fil ... istics.pdf

(There's a minor tabulation error in that report, so feel free to reject the entire work of the governments of the nations' of the world.)

tally.png


As you can see, the missing European jews didn't show up anywhere else after the war. Of course, we can't rule out that they were wandering.
I can't help thinking that the problems of the Holocaust have been swept under the carpet...

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 5865
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#12

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:50 pm

Lsuoma wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
gurugeorge wrote:The figure of "6 million" is also deeply suspicious in and of itself, since it was the stock figure for the estimate of the population of Jews in Europe through the early part of the 20th century (there are numerous newspaper articles from the 20s and 30s using that figure).
I dunno, that might have something to do with the fact that there were about 6 million jews in Europe exclusive of Russia.

The pre-war census figures are very extensive and complete, and a comprehensive tally was conducted after the war. They came up 6 million Jews short worldwide:

http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Fil ... istics.pdf

(There's a minor tabulation error in that report, so feel free to reject the entire work of the governments of the nations' of the world.)

tally.png


As you can see, the missing European jews didn't show up anywhere else after the war. Of course, we can't rule out that they were wandering.
I can't help thinking that the problems of the Holocaust have been swept under the carpet...
I wish that they'd be swept over here. I rarely would like mod cleanup, but somebody spilled sticky caramel in Aisle 1.

TheMudbrooker
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#13

Post by TheMudbrooker » Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:12 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
TheMudbrooker wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Obviously you don't need that degree of care with de-lousing doses of the stuff. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that you would if you were using the stuff in lethal doses, since the gas is hyper-flammable.
Do you have evidence that delousing involved lower 'doses' than what was allegedly used to gas prisoners? How much, exactly, is the difference between a 'delousing' dose vs. a 'jew-killing' one?

No, Prussic acid is lethal in pretty much any dose. Which is why the manufacturer of Zyklon B included an eye irritant agent as a warning. A gas mask and gloves will protect you, though. Obviously, as that is what fumigators wore. Coincidently so did the camp guards.

You keep harping about its “hyper-flammability”. How was it beyond the capability of the SS to handle this stuff without blowing themselves up, when for 60 years folks had been safely fumigating ships and train cars and buildings with it?
A little info about HCN in air, at 50 ppm it's fatal in about an hour without medical intervention. At 300 ppm it's fatal in about five minutes. According to witnesses the amount of Zyklon used in the gas chambers would have produced 3000-5000 ppm. The lower explosive limit (LEL) is 56,000 ppm. In other words, the Nazis would have had to use ten times an already greatly excessive amount for it to become flammable.
Oh shit, george -- facts.
Something I forgot to mention, mammals are far more sensitive to HCN than insects. It takes a much higher dose to kill lice (around 1000 ppm if I remember correctly) and a longer exposure time than it does to kill humans.

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#14

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:15 am

Something I forgot to mention, mammals are far more sensitive to HCN than insects. It takes a much higher dose to kill lice (around 1000 ppm if I remember correctly) and a longer exposure time than it does to kill humans.
[/quote]
That would explain all those exploding fruit orchards.

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#15

Post by gurugeorge » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:08 pm

Matt, I'm not going to respond to your strawmanning. I haven't been saying "here are a few problems, therefore it didn't happen". I'm saying "here are a few problems, maybe it didn't happen." And I'm not really that interested in carrying on a huge argument about this, mainly because I'm not all that sure of it myself. All I'm claiming is that there's quite a lot of room for doubt about the established Holocaust story. And I think there's enough of an accumulation of little problems to doubt the three main planks of the established Holocaust story:- 1) that there was an order for mass extermination, which 2) was effected by industrial-scale use of gas chambers, leading to 3) 6 million Jews deliberately exterminated by this process.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: You insinuate intentional mendacity. Yet a much simpler and more rational explanation exists. The Western allies were aware of reports of mass exterminations being conducted in the East, including accounts of gassings. When they liberated Dachau & Buchenwald they found horrific conditions, with skeletal prisoners, heaps of dead bodies, and the remains of pyres. This initial impression alone would explain the belief that these were extermination camps.
The Western Allies weren't given access to the Eastern camps, so they were unable to verify the Russians' contentions. Also, insinuating mendacity isn't necessary when we have actual evidence of mendacity, in that the famous table with human lampshades, shrunken heads, and pieces of human skin with tattoos, in front of which streams of shocked Germans were paraded, was bogus psyops by the Allies.

The horrific conditions and skeletal prisoners, the heaps of dead bodies and the remains of pyres at the first liberated Western camps are all consistent with a) mass transportation of prisoners from Eastern camps to Western as a response to the Russian advance, b) breakdown of food/medicine distribution and c) breakdown of Nazi governmental structure, as a result of d) heavy bombing by the Allies, leading to e) a great deal of starvation and disease in the consequently overcrowded Western camps. It's quite possible that if anyone's to blame for the heaps of dead bodies and starving, diseased humans that were found at Belsen, Dachau, etc. it's actually the Allies. We already know the Allies thought nothing of setting up a blockade which resulted in half a million Greeks dying, or diverting shipping from India in such a way that 2.5 million Bengalis died from starvation. These are not exactly Pure White Hats we're dealing with then, any more than they are now.

Of course none of this is conclusive - but then again, none of it is conclusive for the Holocaust story either. Moreover, one of the main reasons why people just assume the truth of the Holocaust story is precisely the images seared in our brains of the conditions from footage taken in the liberated Western camps. But we now know that the Western camps weren't extermination camps, and we have no comparable images or hard evidence from the Eastern camps that supposedly were gas chamber extermination camps.

Re. the flammability issue. The figures TheMudbrooker uses would be for an even dispersion, right? OK, so Zyklon B is basically gypsum pellets infused with hydrogen cyanide, which evaporates fairly slowly from the pellets (which is why the purpose built German fumigation chambers used heat with a proper ventilation system). But as I understand it, given the eyewitness claims of time to death (which range from instantaneous to around 20 minutes, with most in the range of around 5-10 minutes) you would have to massively overcompensate the amounts of Zyklon B used in order to have enough concentrated gas to be able to kill upwards of a few hundred or a thousand terrified human beings in a room just by emptying canisters of the pellets into the room, and at that point you would probably be risking localized explosions in areas where the gas was highly concentrated (which it would be nearest the pellets). (Incidentally, the shorter times from witness claims are just sheerly implausible on any account.)

It seems to me that there's just this fishy contradiction about the gas chambers story. The Germans had developed proper, sophisticated chambers and systems of delivery for fumigation, with ways of getting gas at measured doses swiftly into and out of a room, yet we're expected to believe that when it came to the industrial scale mass murder of hundreds of human beings in a single space, they decided not to have sophisticated systems of delivery and ventilation, and just blithely emptied out what would have had to have been a hell of a lot of cans of Zyklon B, into rooms with wooden doors and the like, and with no proper way of getting the gas out quickly once the people had been murdered (so you could get all the corpses out ready for the next batch), when actually by that method, given the large amount of pellets they would have had to have used to get that effect, they would have risked localized high concentrations of the gas, leading to a danger of localized explosions. (IOW, the gas probably could have been at high enough concentration for accidental explosion nearest the pellets, given that you needed sufficient gas concentration to kill at the extremities of the room furthest away from the pellets, in the context of rooms without proper systems of ventilation like the fumigation chambers had.)

I understand that it's absolutely terrifying to contemplate all this given the enormity of the possibility of it being false. Every fiber of my being revolted against looking into this myself initially. I initially felt queasy looking into the revisionist claims. But it doesn't need to be the improbable thing - a deliberate Big Lie. If you think of it as similar to the development of a religion, or to the development of the UFO cult based on some sticks and tinfoil in the desert, it makes a lot more sense. As I said initially, what happened to the Jews was bad enough, and actually a much stronger basis to build a Holocaust religion on than the sticks and tinfoil that were enough to start the UFO religion. But it's a similar thing: initial Allied wartime psyops rumours, a lot of terrified hearsay passing between victims of a very real persecution, added to a convenient way for Russians to deflect attention from their own atrocities, culminating in a neat way of more or less instantaneously de-Nazifying an entire population.

As always, the sceptical question in these sorts of circumstances is: if it's so slam-dunk, why is questioning it so verboten? Why do people questioning it have to go to jail? Ostensibly because if you question the Holocaust you're at the very least a closet Nazi who wants to reboot national socialism. But the very reason rebooting national socialism is considered a bad thing is because the national socialists are believed to have committed the Holocaust. It's completely circular.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#16

Post by deLurch » Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:30 pm

Lsuoma wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:09 pm
I can't help thinking that the problems of the Holocaust have been swept under the carpet...
That is only possible AFTER the gas chamber has been used.

TheMudbrooker
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#17

Post by TheMudbrooker » Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:43 pm

gurugeorge wrote: Matt, I'm not going to respond to your strawmanning. I haven't been saying "here are a few problems, therefore it didn't happen". I'm saying "here are a few problems, maybe it didn't happen." And I'm not really that interested in carrying on a huge argument about this, mainly because I'm not all that sure of it myself. All I'm claiming is that there's quite a lot of room for doubt about the established Holocaust story. And I think there's enough of an accumulation of little problems to doubt the three main planks of the established Holocaust story:- 1) that there was an order for mass extermination, which 2) was effected by industrial-scale use of gas chambers, leading to 3) 6 million Jews deliberately exterminated by this process.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: You insinuate intentional mendacity. Yet a much simpler and more rational explanation exists. The Western allies were aware of reports of mass exterminations being conducted in the East, including accounts of gassings. When they liberated Dachau & Buchenwald they found horrific conditions, with skeletal prisoners, heaps of dead bodies, and the remains of pyres. This initial impression alone would explain the belief that these were extermination camps.
The Western Allies weren't given access to the Eastern camps, so they were unable to verify the Russians' contentions. Also, insinuating mendacity isn't necessary when we have actual evidence of mendacity, in that the famous table with human lampshades, shrunken heads, and pieces of human skin with tattoos, in front of which streams of shocked Germans were paraded, was bogus psyops by the Allies.

The horrific conditions and skeletal prisoners, the heaps of dead bodies and the remains of pyres at the first liberated Western camps are all consistent with a) mass transportation of prisoners from Eastern camps to Western as a response to the Russian advance, b) breakdown of food/medicine distribution and c) breakdown of Nazi governmental structure, as a result of d) heavy bombing by the Allies, leading to e) a great deal of starvation and disease in the consequently overcrowded Western camps. It's quite possible that if anyone's to blame for the heaps of dead bodies and starving, diseased humans that were found at Belsen, Dachau, etc. it's actually the Allies. We already know the Allies thought nothing of setting up a blockade which resulted in half a million Greeks dying, or diverting shipping from India in such a way that 2.5 million Bengalis died from starvation. These are not exactly Pure White Hats we're dealing with then, any more than they are now.

Of course none of this is conclusive - but then again, none of it is conclusive for the Holocaust story either. Moreover, one of the main reasons why people just assume the truth of the Holocaust story is precisely the images seared in our brains of the conditions from footage taken in the liberated Western camps. But we now know that the Western camps weren't extermination camps, and we have no comparable images or hard evidence from the Eastern camps that supposedly were gas chamber extermination camps.

Re. the flammability issue. The figures TheMudbrooker uses would be for an even dispersion, right? OK, so Zyklon B is basically gypsum pellets infused with hydrogen cyanide, which evaporates fairly slowly from the pellets (which is why the purpose built German fumigation chambers used heat with a proper ventilation system). But as I understand it, given the eyewitness claims of time to death (which range from instantaneous to around 20 minutes, with most in the range of around 5-10 minutes) you would have to massively overcompensate the amounts of Zyklon B used in order to have enough concentrated gas to be able to kill upwards of a few hundred or a thousand terrified human beings in a room just by emptying canisters of the pellets into the room, and at that point you would probably be risking localized explosions in areas where the gas was highly concentrated (which it would be nearest the pellets). (Incidentally, the shorter times from witness claims are just sheerly implausible on any account.)

It seems to me that there's just this fishy contradiction about the gas chambers story. The Germans had developed proper, sophisticated chambers and systems of delivery for fumigation, with ways of getting gas at measured doses swiftly into and out of a room, yet we're expected to believe that when it came to the industrial scale mass murder of hundreds of human beings in a single space, they decided not to have sophisticated systems of delivery and ventilation, and just blithely emptied out what would have had to have been a hell of a lot of cans of Zyklon B, into rooms with wooden doors and the like, and with no proper way of getting the gas out quickly once the people had been murdered (so you could get all the corpses out ready for the next batch), when actually by that method, given the large amount of pellets they would have had to have used to get that effect, they would have risked localized high concentrations of the gas, leading to a danger of localized explosions. (IOW, the gas probably could have been at high enough concentration for accidental explosion nearest the pellets, given that you needed sufficient gas concentration to kill at the extremities of the room furthest away from the pellets, in the context of rooms without proper systems of ventilation like the fumigation chambers had.)

I understand that it's absolutely terrifying to contemplate all this given the enormity of the possibility of it being false. Every fiber of my being revolted against looking into this myself initially. I initially felt queasy looking into the revisionist claims. But it doesn't need to be the improbable thing - a deliberate Big Lie. If you think of it as similar to the development of a religion, or to the development of the UFO cult based on some sticks and tinfoil in the desert, it makes a lot more sense. As I said initially, what happened to the Jews was bad enough, and actually a much stronger basis to build a Holocaust religion on than the sticks and tinfoil that were enough to start the UFO religion. But it's a similar thing: initial Allied wartime psyops rumours, a lot of terrified hearsay passing between victims of a very real persecution, added to a convenient way for Russians to deflect attention from their own atrocities, culminating in a neat way of more or less instantaneously de-Nazifying an entire population.

As always, the sceptical question in these sorts of circumstances is: if it's so slam-dunk, why is questioning it so verboten? Why do people questioning it have to go to jail? Ostensibly because if you question the Holocaust you're at the very least a closet Nazi who wants to reboot national socialism. But the very reason rebooting national socialism is considered a bad thing is because the national socialists are believed to have committed the Holocaust. It's completely circular.
Your statement that HCN evaporates slowly is incorrect. Hydrogen cyanide is quite volatile, has a low vapor pressure, low boiling point (78 F) and disperses rapidly in air. Before you say "But unless the room was above 78F it wouldn't evaporate" ask yourself how much water vapor is in the air around you and how much you are exhaling with each breath even though water has a low volatility and neither you nor the room you're in are anywhere near its boiling point. In Krema II and III the gas chambers were long, semi-subterranean rooms with powerful ventilation systems built into the walls. These systems are shown on the blueprints, which survive intact in several iterations, and are visible in the ruins. Assuming a year-round temperature of 55 degrees F, average ground temperature, all the HCN in Zyklon B pellets would evaporate in under three minutes. This is disregarding the fact that between 1500 and 2000 people crowded as tightly as possible in a confined space would quickly raise the temperature to well above the boiling point of HCN (78 F) before the pellets were even dropped in. At that temperature the HCN would flash boil and given the large surface area of the pellets, which was the point of using gypsum pellets in the first place, evaporation would be near instantaneous. There were four holes in the gas chamber roof spaced evenly down the length of the room to provide fast, even dispersal of the gas, and yes, these holes have been proven to exist, leading to wire mesh columns and one can of Zyklon was poured into each. While this was enough for a massive overdose of cyanide, it was hardly a "hell of a lot of cans of Zyklon B". You are correct in saying that at the point where the gas was evaporating there could be locally high enough concentrations to be flammable. The problem is that this condition would only exist for a short period and unless the Nazis were in the habit of allowing someone to stand next to the gas columns with a lit match while the pellets were being poured in, there is no source of ignition. According to the testimony of surviving Sonderkommando prisoners and a few of the SS involved the gas was poured in and after five to ten minutes the ventilation was turned on for twenty to thirty minutes before the door was opened and the bodies removed.

Krema IV and V were of a different design, everything was above ground and there were several smaller gas chambers in each. The pellets were poured into each room through a hatch high in the side wall. Being much smaller, a single point of entry for the gas for each room was sufficient because, once again, HCN disperses quickly in air. There was no forced ventilation in the chambers, instead the Sonderkommando were given gas masks and the rooms were opened immediately after gassing. Natural ventilation was enough to clear the rooms by the time the bodies were removed. In cold weather, portable heaters were used to pre-heat the rooms to ensure rapid evaporation.

The Germans actually used several different types of delousing and fumigation chambers at Auschwitz. Some used steam, some used hot air and some used Zyklon. The "sophisticated" fumigation chambers using Zyklon consisted of a room with a wooden door with felt sealing strips and a small vent fan in the wall. The Zyklon pellets were simply sprinkled on the floor and once the proper amount of time had passed and the room was vented, the spent pellets were swept up. Pretty advanced technology, eh?

To address another of your points, no, the Allies didn't have clean hands in WWII. What of it? Even if the only reason Dresden was firebombed was for the pure bloody minded joy of burning people alive, how does that magically change anything the Nazis did?

I do agree with you on one thing, Holocaust denial laws are possibly the most stupid laws ever enacted. All they do is give an underground, outlaw cache to claims and ideas that would otherwise be destroyed in open discussion.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#18

Post by jugheadnaut » Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:47 pm

gurugeorge wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:57 pm
jugheadnaut wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:08 am
But even if the 6 million figure was universal, that was the best estimate for the time. It was about half the total Jewish population of Europe, so, if the Nazis also wound up exterminated about half the Jews of Europe, is that just too much of a coincidence for you to bear, and a conspiracy can be the only explanation.
It might have been a "best estimate" at some point in the time from 1900 to the 1940s, but it seems like an oddly static population estimate for a period of nearly 40 years.

But you're right, it would be interesting to see if there were any non-6-million estimates in the papers for that period.
Do you think there were decadanal censuses in Galicia and Lithuania 100 years ago? 6 million Jews in far Eastern Europe was the estimate from early in the 20th century, an estimate that is still the best guess today, and in the absence of any evidence to change that number it's not the least bit surprising it was a number that was primarily used for a few decades. Hell, I still commonly hear people giving spitballing population estimates for Canada and the U.S. of 25 and 250 million respectively, even though these numbers have been far surpassed, because those are the numbers they grew up with.

But let's keep in mind your overall argument here. You're saying 6 million Jews in peril was a narrative established long before WW2, which basically greased the wheels to a false narrative about 6 million dead Jews in the Holocaust. As support, you have a source listing pre-WW2 newspaper stories using this figure. But the newspaper stories are mostly referring to a real circumstance distinct from the Holocaust, and the source was specifically looking for the use of "6 million" and isn't evidence that this became a magic number. It's the equivalent of a completely uncontrolled scientific study and that's what you're clinging to. It's just an incredibly weak argument.

The second major argument you're employing is that there were exaggerations and even outright fabrications in early days after the war about Nazi crimes. So what? Today's body of knowledge is based on rigorous, diligent and professional study, which you seem to be completely ignorant of. The fact that there were early incorrect allegations when emotions were still running hot has no impact on this body of knowledge. Another incredibly weak argument, and it makes it hard to believe you're just on an indifferent search for truth. It appears much more likely that for reasons best known to yourself, you have a preferred outcome and are on a search for evidence appearing to support that outcome.

Let's take you sticking to the claim that hydrogen cyanide is highly flammable and would be, at minimum, impractical for this use. As I told you early on, and Mudbrooker explained in more detail, the flammability is only at orders of magnitude above the concentrations required for lethality. So now you come up with a "local concentrations" claim. Again, this betrays a deep ignorance in how it was actually used. In the gas chambers designed for mass killings (i.e. the Birknau ones) Zyklon B pellets were lowered in a column within a moveable wire mesh basket, inside a fixed column of three wire mesh lattices. So there was explicit protection from sparks and flame at close range to the pellets in the gas introduction design. If you can't concede that the line of argumentation you were making here is a dead end, it makes it nearly impossible to believe you are just on a search for truth.


gurugeorge wrote: I haven't been saying "here are a few problems, therefore it didn't happen". I'm saying "here are a few problems, maybe it didn't happen." And I'm not really that interested in carrying on a huge argument about this, mainly because I'm not all that sure of it myself. All I'm claiming is that there's quite a lot of room for doubt about the established Holocaust story.
No, you've stated flat out that you believe the absence of gas chambers and of a specific plan to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe is the most likely explanation, not maybe. You're just posing as a JAQ'er, which almost all Holocaust deniers do when they're trying to convince others.

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#19

Post by gurugeorge » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:21 pm

TheMudbrooker wrote: Assuming a year-round temperature of 55 degrees F, average ground temperature, all the HCN in Zyklon B pellets would evaporate in under three minutes.
The science here (and some in the rest of your paragraph, but the above comment struck me in particular) doesn't jibe with the science here, which includes a graph from a 1942 Zyklon B usage guide. From the graph there it looks like you wouldn't even get 100% yield even after an hour at 59 F. The article also addresses some of your other comments (e.g. mass body heat.

Incidentally, "crowded as tightly as possible" always strikes me as contradictory to at least those proposed scenarios in which unsuspecting prisoners were filed into shower rooms. When the shower room is starting to get overcrowded to the point at which you've got several people under any given shower head and people are still pouring into the room, the subterfuge of a fake shower room seems like it wouldn't be of any use.
To address another of your points, no, the Allies didn't have clean hands in WWII. What of it? Even if the only reason Dresden was firebombed was for the pure bloody minded joy of burning people alive, how does that magically change anything the Nazis did?
The firebombing of Dresden isn't relevant, what's relevant is that the Allies could be callous; and that, combined with the fact that they definitely used some false propaganda to de-Nazify Germans, means it wasn't beyond them to fabricate the whole Holocaust story based on semi-plausible evidence at the time. That should be part of one's "priors." In that case "what the Nazis did" isn't clear.

MacGruberKnows
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#20

Post by MacGruberKnows » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:59 pm

regarding gas vans, lets say you have a 4 liter 6 cylinder engine. Each cylinder fires once every 2 revolutions. Each cylinder has 2/3 liter displacement. At 2000 RPM just at atmospheric pressure that is 2 liters / rev * 2000 RPM, or 4000 liters exhaust or 4 cubic meters per minute going into the van. 2M x 2M X 1M In one minute. Within a 5 to 10 minutes there is not much of any oxygen left in the van to breathe. The people in that van suffocate to death, I don't care what the PPM the CO or CO2 is. Cause death by poisoning isn't going to happen because they will suffocate first.

I know what the poor people in that van would be breathing in short order, the point is, WTF is Vickie breathing?

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#21

Post by gurugeorge » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:28 pm

jugheadnaut wrote: Do you think there were decadanal censuses in Galicia and Lithuania 100 years ago?
I don't know - do you know? If you don't then this is irrelevant. Also, the 6 million figure was supposed to include all European Jews killed in the Holocaust, not just Jews from Eastern Europe. So in that case we have the strange coincidence of the estimated population of Eastern European Jewry specifically just happening to be the same as the number of all European Jews killed in the Holocaust.
But let's keep in mind your overall argument here. You're saying 6 million Jews in peril was a narrative established long before WW2, which basically greased the wheels to a false narrative about 6 million dead Jews in the Holocaust. As support, you have a source listing pre-WW2 newspaper stories using this figure. But the newspaper stories are mostly referring to a real circumstance distinct from the Holocaust,
Some of them also called a "holocaust" be it noted. Before the war started.
and the source was specifically looking for the use of "6 million" and isn't evidence that this became a magic number. It's the equivalent of a completely uncontrolled scientific study and that's what you're clinging to. It's just an incredibly weak argument.
My "argument" is simply that the figure's appearing consistently prior to WW2 and then appearing as the number of Jews killed by the Nazis is suspicious. It's too pat, too neat, too much like a kind of set propaganda trope that's used again and again.
The second major argument you're employing is that there were exaggerations and even outright fabrications in early days after the war about Nazi crimes. So what? Today's body of knowledge is based on rigorous, diligent and professional study, which you seem to be completely ignorant of. The fact that there were early incorrect allegations when emotions were still running hot has no impact on this body of knowledge.
Well, it's true that the claims of Holocaust historians have mellowed over the years (partly under pressure from revisionists, be it noted). But that in itself is a bit worrying - especially considering the stronger claims aren't being corrected for the public. Again, it's like the Christian thing - academics know how sketchy the evidence for Jesus' existence is, but that can't be allowed to disturb the faithful ...
Another incredibly weak argument, and it makes it hard to believe you're just on an indifferent search for truth. It appears much more likely that for reasons best known to yourself, you have a preferred outcome and are on a search for evidence appearing to support that outcome.
Oh here we go :roll:
In the gas chambers designed for mass killings (i.e. the Birknau ones) Zyklon B pellets were lowered in a column within a moveable wire mesh basket, inside a fixed column of three wire mesh lattices. So there was explicit protection from sparks and flame at close range to the pellets in the gas introduction design. If you can't concede that the line of argumentation you were making here is a dead end, it makes it nearly impossible to believe you are just on a search for truth.
But there's no such claim of a special basket arrangement for many other alleged gas chambers at other camps. A lot of the stories seem to be about straightforward shower rooms with pellets dropped from the ceiling, and indeed that's the image most people probably have in their minds, isn't it? So how did the Nazis keep things safe under those circumstances?
No, you've stated flat out that you believe the absence of gas chambers and of a specific plan to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe is the most likely explanation, not maybe.
"Seems" the most likely explanation I think I've said. I'm also still reading into the pro side. Emotionally I'm still careening about, so I may overstate it sometimes, but soberly speaking I really am not sure, just trending more and more towards sure the more I look into it.
You're just posing as a JAQ'er, which almost all Holocaust deniers do when they're trying to convince others.
Oh I'm "posing" now. Great, another mind-reader.

Look, let me clarify. I'm 58 years old, I've been philo-Semitic since I can remember, and I have no beef with "ordinary Jews," any more than I have a beef with "ordinary Muslims" when contemplating Islam's shenanigans. But over the past year or two of deeper and deeper red pilling (which started with Dawkins' deplatforming waking me up from my dogmatic libertarian slumbers) I am becoming increasingly suspicious that there is such a thing as ethnic Jewish supremacy, that there have been some ethnic Jewish supremacists who have done great harm to their host cultures, and that they - and not some innate pathology all Gentiles have called "anti-Semitism" - are the main cause of the problems Jews have suffered. I didn't hate Jews then try to justify my hatred, I like Jews but I am - I think - gradually coming to understand why people have historically talked about a "Jewish Question," why the Jews have so often been seen as problematic by other ethnic groups and cultures.

Funnily enough, I may actually be half-Jewish myself (murky family background, I'm adopted) - but even if I were, I'd still think like this, because this is where the evidence and logic are leading me. I could still be wrong, obviously, but I can only call it as I see it. If I do 23andMe and it turns out I am a Jew, maybe I'll have to join the camp of righteous self-hating Jews!

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#22

Post by gurugeorge » Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:35 pm

Response to Brive's post in the undead thread.
Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:08 am
You also have to stop seeing the Holocaust as a singular event.
OK, tell that to all the holocaust museums, to the millions of people who have been told for decades, and who believe, that it was a singular event. Also tell them that the numbers have been scaled down considerably over the years.
Wannsee was concerned with the non Warthegau (ie the General Govt esp Warsaw) Polish Jews and those of southern and Western Europe.

It was specifically concerned with:
+ communicating the end of confusion over the JQ - their time was up.
+ ensuring the middle managers were all on the same page
+ aspects of logistics
+ locking in Heydrich as overall project owner

Like any high order plan it dealt with vision, outcome and command/control - not operational specifics. The mechanisms were still being sorted at the functionary level.
As I said elsewhere, this is (as so much of the Holocaust is starting to look to me now) circular reasoning. As I've pointed out, and AFAIK, nowhere in that document is there any literal talk of extermination. You can only construe "final solution" as talking about extermination, you can only think of the language in the document as coded references to extermination, if you already believe there was ordered, deliberate extermination; it can't be used to support the proposition that there was ordered, deliberate extermination unless there is independent evidence of ordered, deliberate extermination - e.g. evidence of actual gas chambers and crematoria that could plausibly have industrially dealt with many hundreds, or thousands, exterminated per day, or (for the Aktion Reinhardt group) actual mass graves with actual masses of bodies (such as those exhumed at Katyn).

THEN - yes, of course, it's absolutely plausible that the Wannsee minutes look like coded references to an ordered mass extermination as the "final solution".

But without that assumption, and without the dark aura the term "final solution" has in our minds - why can't the Wannsee document be consonant with the kinds of references we see in other documents; to the idea that Hitler, Himmler, Goering, etc., were talking about getting all the Jews physically removed from the Reich by means such as mass deportation, etc.? That would be a literal and "final" solution to the JQ too, wouldn't it?

But it wouldn't make the Nazis the ultimate historical Huwhite bad guys, and it would also equilibriate how we think of the Soviet atrocities, and maybe, with closer attention to the Soviet atrocities, it might start to dawn on people that the Soviet atrocities were partly Jewish atrocities - and maybe that's the ultimate elephant in the room.
On the one hand the Warthegau authorities were getting pissed that they were being sent the left over German Jews. The General Govt was pissed that the real deportations to slave labour in Russia weren’t eventuating and dirty ghettos were stabilising which were consuming resources. What’s the plan bob? In Summer the mid managers went to Berlin but were sent packing with orders to be patient.

Meanwhile the racially driven Jewish / Communist war in the east was radicalising. The Einsatzgruppen progressed from killing communists to male Jews to all Jews within a 6 month period. And then December 1941 happened. America had spent 1941 escalating its stance against Germany, sinking Uboats and shit. Hitler saw Roosevelt as the stooge of international Jewry and the American initiatives as another front in his racial war. When Japan attacked he formalised a war he felt was already being waged. As early as 1939 Hitler had publicly announced a World Jewish War would see the destruction of European Jewry. With 3 million Polish Jews at large, in late 1941 he gave the nod and the gears ground into action. No more confusion.
So this makes sense as a possible way of looking at it, yes, but only in a way analogous to the way people read St. Paul as talking about a flesh-and-blood Jesus, when actually he doesn't mention that sort of Jesus at all, only a spiritual one.

But don't you notice how much the claims have shrunk from all the initial Nuremberg claims (many of them wild and long since abandoned), the claims in the wartime movies, the claims by Polish resistance, by the Allies, by every movie and book on the subject until relatively recently, etc., etc.?

We could be looking at historians gradually homing in on a measured, sober level of actual fact. But in that case historians owe it to the public to make a bigger effort to make the more measured, sober truth public.

On the other hand, we could be looking at a gradually shrinking "Holocaust" that will eventually shrink down to several hundred thousand shot, several hundred thousand dead from starvation and Typhus, with maybe a few tends of thousands no doubt horribly tortured and/or executed.

But that is not the "classic" Holocaust: i.e., it is not a) a top down order to exterminate all the Jews, effected b) by the use of gas chambers in all the concentration camps, making nearly all of them death camps, leading to c) 6 million Jews deliberately exterminated. That is the Holocaust that the Man on the Clapham Omnibus believes is true, irrefutable history. But it no longer seems like true, irrefutable history, does it?

And even a trimmed-down "functional" Holocaust story is starting to look dodgy if we're starting to lay more and more weight on the Aktion Reinhardt group of camps, and making out that a good deal of the Holocaust was as much some sort of spontaneous ground-up phenomenon by commanders on the ground, as it was the result of a top-down order, etc.

MacGruberKnows
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#23

Post by MacGruberKnows » Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:10 pm

TheMudbrooker wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
TheMudbrooker wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Obviously you don't need that degree of care with de-lousing doses of the stuff. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that you would if you were using the stuff in lethal doses, since the gas is hyper-flammable.
Do you have evidence that delousing involved lower 'doses' than what was allegedly used to gas prisoners? How much, exactly, is the difference between a 'delousing' dose vs. a 'jew-killing' one?

No, Prussic acid is lethal in pretty much any dose. Which is why the manufacturer of Zyklon B included an eye irritant agent as a warning. A gas mask and gloves will protect you, though. Obviously, as that is what fumigators wore. Coincidently so did the camp guards.

You keep harping about its “hyper-flammability”. How was it beyond the capability of the SS to handle this stuff without blowing themselves up, when for 60 years folks had been safely fumigating ships and train cars and buildings with it?
A little info about HCN in air, at 50 ppm it's fatal in about an hour without medical intervention. At 300 ppm it's fatal in about five minutes. According to witnesses the amount of Zyklon used in the gas chambers would have produced 3000-5000 ppm. The lower explosive limit (LEL) is 56,000 ppm. In other words, the Nazis would have had to use ten times an already greatly excessive amount for it to become flammable.
Oh shit, george -- facts.
Something I forgot to mention, mammals are far more sensitive to HCN than insects. It takes a much higher dose to kill lice (around 1000 ppm if I remember correctly) and a longer exposure time than it does to kill humans.
This only proves that Jews are insects.

Sorry, just trying to go with the vibe that some people on this place are giving this place. Don't know why they just don't go to StormFront or is it still offline?

MacGruberKnows
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#24

Post by MacGruberKnows » Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:51 pm

guru is using rightpedia as a source. It is a bottom of the barrel scum-sucking site even for nazi's. Fuck off asshole. And your asshole 'I just want to ask sincere questions to get sincere answers' attitiude. Fuck off. Scum like you think you can drop off your information on sites like this to 'inform' us. And get recruits. Fuck off.

My dad killed Nazi's in WWII. It cost him half a leg and most of a shoulder. He said he got paid 50 cents a day to kill Nazi's. And he said it was the best job he ever had.

Go fuck yourself. And your 'inquiring minds just want to know.." bullshit. Your mind is completely set in concrete and you are here to recruit.

Fuck off.

And take the insane Vicki 'I am an expert on everything I decide I am' lunatic with you.

And then the both of you go fuck yourselves.

TheMudbrooker
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#25

Post by TheMudbrooker » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:22 pm

gurugeorge wrote:
TheMudbrooker wrote: Assuming a year-round temperature of 55 degrees F, average ground temperature, all the HCN in Zyklon B pellets would evaporate in under three minutes.
The science here (and some in the rest of your paragraph, but the above comment struck me in particular) doesn't jibe with the science here, which includes a graph from a 1942 Zyklon B usage guide. From the graph there it looks like you wouldn't even get 100% yield even after an hour at 59 F. The article also addresses some of your other comments (e.g. mass body heat.

Incidentally, "crowded as tightly as possible" always strikes me as contradictory to at least those proposed scenarios in which unsuspecting prisoners were filed into shower rooms. When the shower room is starting to get overcrowded to the point at which you've got several people under any given shower head and people are still pouring into the room, the subterfuge of a fake shower room seems like it wouldn't be of any use.
To address another of your points, no, the Allies didn't have clean hands in WWII. What of it? Even if the only reason Dresden was firebombed was for the pure bloody minded joy of burning people alive, how does that magically change anything the Nazis did?
The firebombing of Dresden isn't relevant, what's relevant is that the Allies could be callous; and that, combined with the fact that they definitely used some false propaganda to de-Nazify Germans, means it wasn't beyond them to fabricate the whole Holocaust story based on semi-plausible evidence at the time. That should be part of one's "priors." In that case "what the Nazis did" isn't clear.
First off, you're right, I did make a few errors. First, the 50 ppm of HCN figure I quoted as lethal after and hour is wrong, it's tolerable for 30-60 minutes. 100 ppm is fatal in that time period but the 300ppm figure being rapidly fatal is correct. Second, I had my concept of vapor pressure ass-backwards (after all, it has been 30 years since high school chemistry) I was under the mistaken idea that lower vapor pressure meant easier evaporation when the opposite is true. HCN has an extremely high vapor pressure, so high in fact, that even at temperatures of -20C when the HCN is frozen solid it still evolves lethal concentrations of gas. Lastly, I was badly wrong about the evaporation time, the correct amount is closer to 20% rather than 100% in that amount of time at that temperature. Unfortunately for your case, this is still far above the lethal threshold. Which brings up the Rightpedia article you cite. It's almost entirely based on the wildly, if not deliberately, inaccurate Rudolf Report with a few references to other denier works. The Rudolf Report is at best very slightly more reliable the the work of Fred Leucter. See this http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust- ... affweb.pdf for a refutation of Rudolf's claims. The chart you mention is Rudolf's, not Dagesh's usage guide.

The unsuspecting prisoners weren't simply allowed to wander into the "shower" of their own accord. According to witnesses, both Sonderkommando and SS, once they were stripped and the gas chamber started to fill, most did indeed begin to sense something was wrong. At his point the pretense was dropped and whips, rifle butts and bayonets were used to drive them forward. The plain fact of the matter is once inside the crematorium they were trapped and one way or another they were going into the gas chamber.

I mention Dresden because it's the denier's favorite tu quoque argument, similar to the one you are trying to make. What the Nazis did is clear. It's clear from Einzatsgruppen reports, the Hofle telegram, the Stahlecker report, the correspondence to and from Rauff, Globocnik's final report on Aktion Reinhard, recent archaeology at Chelmno, Belzec and Sobibor, train records, requisitions and literally tons of contemporary Nazi documents. Yes, the record is incomplete and there are inaccuracies, but even if you were to somehow prove that not a single Jew died in Auschwitz and it satellite camps you are still left with physical and documentary evidence, from the Nazis themselves, that millions were systematically slaughtered throughout the Reich. Or are you seriously going to claim that it's all forgeries and faked evidence because the Allies weren't above doing evil themselves?

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 9707
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#26

Post by Kirbmarc » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:06 am

gurugeorge wrote: Some of them also called a "holocaust" be it noted. Before the war started.
That's very, very weak.

There was a Lone Gunmen episode about the US government crashing a plane on the Twin Towers, which aired on March, 4th 2001, months before 9/11. The Truthers went nuts over it. And yet the explanation for the inspiration of the episode is easy to see if one remembers that in 1993 the Twin Towers had been attacked by terrorists and in 1945 a B-25 plane had accidentally crashed in the Empire State Building, while in 1994 Tom Clancy had written a book about a guy crashing on the Pentagon (itself inspired by the failed terrorist attack of Samuel Byck in 1972).

So one can easily see that while the Lone Gunmen looks eerily similar to 9/11 the ideas that it put together were nothing new, and are hardly any evidence of a conspiracy, especially since the evidence of Al-Qaeda's responsibilities for the attack, when analyzed by people who aren't trying to shoehorn conspiracy theories everywhere, is very clear and consistent.

Similarly the TV show "Black Mirror" used as the plot of its pilot episode the idea that the UK prime minister had to be forced to fuck a pig, just days before the new broke out that the then-current UK prime minister, David Cameron, had been forced to put his penis in the head of a dead pig while he was a member of a university fraternity. In the case there wasn't even a source of inspiration.

Your claim is based on an even more flimsy basis: at least the Lone Gunmen episode had significant similarities to 9/11, even though its inspirations are understandable once you put them in historical context, and the Black Mirror also eerily mirrored (pun intended) the scandal which was exposed just months later.

You just have the use of the word "Holocaust" and of the number of 6 million Jews, and on that basis you want to cast doubt that the extermination was just a narrative decided before the war.

The word "Holocaust", originally a word to refer to "burnt offering", had already been associated with the Armenian genocide by Winston Churchill.
As for the Turkish atrocities ... helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust – these were beyond human redress." (Winston Churchill, The World in Crisis, volume 4: The Aftermath, New York, 1923, p. 158).
The use of"holocaust" as "devastation" that had already been common since at least the late Middle Ages (and in this case, rather interestingly, it was already used to an anti-Jewish pogrom, and by a writer who approved of the pogrom).

There were also many other historical uses of "holocaust" to refer to a massacre:
The earliest use of the word holocaust to denote a massacre recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary dates from 1833 when the journalist Leitch Ritchie, describing the wars of the medieval French monarch Louis VII, wrote that he "once made a holocaust of thirteen hundred persons in a church", a massacre by fire of the inhabitants of Vitry-le-François in 1142. As this occurred in a church, it could be seen as a religious offering. The English poet John Milton had used the word to denote a conflagration in his 1671 poem Samson Agonistes, in which the massacre was clearly divinely dedicated.[7] The word gradually developed to mean a massacre thereon, taking on a secular connotation.[8][9]
There had been already extensive use of the word "holocaust" to refer to the Armenian genocide:
The Armenian Genocide is referenced in the title of a 1922 poem "The Holocaust" (published as a booklet) and the 1923 book "The Smyrna Holocaust" deals with arson and massacre of Armenians.
The first association of the word "holocaust" to Nazism was already made in 1933, in the context of book burning.

It's interesting to note that Jewish authors and theologians don't like the word "holocaust" at all, because it implies a sacrifice to a god, which doesn't jibe well with the events unless one assumes that god wanted the Jews dead (which isn't going to please religious Jews).

So basically you have a word that had a history of use in the context of massacres and persecutions, and also a history of being associated to persecution of Jews, whose original meaning is about "burnt" things, being associated to a regime which engaged in public book burning and publicly persecuted the Jews.

Trying to cast the use of "holocaust" before World Two to refer to Nazi actions against Jews as part of a narrative to smear the poor Nazis with genocide is REALLY reaching.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 9707
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#27

Post by Kirbmarc » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:39 am

By 1935, after the passing of the Nuremberg Laws, which were a public event, it was pretty clear to anyone that the Nazi regime was going to extremely hostile to Jews. Mixed marriages were annulled, mixed relationships were forbidden under the penalty of hard work. Jews were also stripped of citizenship.

By 1938 and the Kristallnacht it was also clear that the Nazi regime was going to implement collective punishment of Jews as a group.

While a lot of people in Europe didn't really care because anti-Jewish sentiments were common, the idea that the Nazis were going out of their way to target Jews was already widespread, especially in the UK and France (in Eastern Europe, were anti-Jewish pogrom were common, many were on the side of the Nazis).

All of these events were highly public and talked about a lot in the current press.

It's really not even remotely suspicious to see the word "holocaust", which had already been used for the (also very public) Nazi book burnings, being associated to anti-Jewish actions of the Nazi regime in the press of English-speaking (and probably even French-speaking) countries.

On the other hand the association of the word "holocaust" to the Jewish genocide specifically, was a gradual linguistic-sociological phenomenon, which started in the later 1940s but wasn't complete until the 1970s. Even today the English speaking world uses the expression "nuclear holocaust" to refer to the possible outcome of a nuclear war, and this use of "holocaust" also started in the late 1940s.

As others have explained the number of 6 million was also a reasonable estimate of Eastern European Jews before World War Two.

If someone wants to argue that there was a conspiracy to build a narrative about Jewish genocide, they'd better not rely on the idea that the use of "holocaust" and "6 million Jews" before World War Two is in any way suspicious, because that's like saying that the use of "Islamic terrorism" and American landmarks like the Twin Towers before 9/11 is "suspicious", when actually the World Trade Center had already been targeted by Islamic terrorism in 1993.

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#28

Post by gurugeorge » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:21 am

Kirbmarc wrote: So basically you have a word that had a history of use in the context of massacres and persecutions, and also a history of being associated to persecution of Jews, whose original meaning is about "burnt" things, being associated to a regime which engaged in public book burning and publicly persecuted the Jews.
Yeesh, that "book burning" connection seems more of a stretch than anything you're imputing to me :)

Anyway, I know what "holocaust" means, and I know it's been associated with massacres. (Has it been associated as much with the "persecution" you slipped in there? Were persecutions occasionally associated with the term "holocaust"?)

While there certainly had been persecution of the Jews by 1936, there hadn't yet (so far as I'm aware) been any massacre of Jews by Nazis in 1936, but yet we have:-
Great Britain has it within her power to throw open the gates of Palestine and let in the victimized and persecuted Jews escaping from the European holocaust."
And before that, in 1933 we have:-
At this period of human persecution and of human destruction, when life, especially Jewish life has ceased to be of any value in the cruel land of bloody Germany, when the lives of hundreds of thousands are tortured and hang in the balance - during this holocaust [...]
Well, were the Nazis engaged in "human destruction" and had Jewish life "ceased to be of any value in the cruel land of bloody Germany" in 1933? Hitler assumed dictatorial powers on 24 March of that year. In April of that year, Jewish civil servants, professors, etc., were kicked out of their jobs. But what one might tolerably consider a genetic sort of holocaust, an ethnic sort of holocaust - the restrictions on Jewish marriage, etc., as enacted in the Nuremberg Laws - that didn't happen till 1935. Maybe that is indeed what the 1936 article is referring to.

*************

Riffing on, because I'm going through this stuff like a dose of salts atm, and have the urge to get it off my chest. Feel free to ignore! :)

Of course if you think the Holocaust was real, obviously anything that happened to Jews in Germany from 1933 to about 1938 has that sinister cloud hanging over it, like a harbinger of things to come, like that moment in Cabaret when some rosy-cheeked German youths kick off a massed round of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me".

But what do events in 1933 and just prior look like without that cloud at the back of your mind?

Something bad, certainly, a lot of harsh rhetoric, a lot of imputation of collective guilt on an ethnic basis, some firings, some sporadic persecutions, certainly, and by 1935 breeding restrictions, certainly. But "human destruction" and Jewish life "ceasing to be of any value in a cruel and bloody land"? A holocaust in any sense other than the metaphorical?

I think Jews would have been justified in worrying that worse things might come in time, given the history of pogroms, and given that anti-Semitism was fairly common even in relatively civilized Germany - even though pogroms had occurred mostly in Eastern Europe and Russia, and Germany had treated Jews comparatively well up to that point (as demonstrated by the fact that Hitler kicked lots of Jews out of middle-class professions by the middle of 1933). And Jews who were able to might well have wished to leave (although not many did, relatively speaking - for example only 500 accepted the Dominican Republic's generous offer of settlement on 80 acres of land, with 10 cows, a mule and a horse thrown in!).

But what these articles look like to me is Zionist propaganda ("throw open the gates of Palestine"), Zionist propaganda which (perhaps) really kicked off in early March 1933 while Hitler was still Chancellor, a fortnight before he was granted plenary powers by the Enabling Act, by which time, the Daily Express of March 24 tells us that:-
[...] the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and her elected government.
The headline for that article (quoted here) is: “Judea Declares War on Germany – Jews of All the World Unite – Boycott of German Goods – Mass Demonstrations.” And the boycott was serious, it had a serious impact on German economic interests (10% reduction in German exports by one estimate).

Here's some Jewish rhetoric from the time (from a paper called the Natscha Retzch, same source as above). Does this sound like a prophecy of things to come - or a program of action?
The war against Germany will be waged by all Jewish communities, conferences, congresses... by every individual Jew. Thereby the war against Germany will ideologically enliven and promote our interests, which require that Germany be wholly destroyed.
The danger for us Jews lies in the whole German people, in Germany as a whole as well as individually. It must be rendered harmless for all time.... In this war we Jews have to participate, and this with all the strength and might we have at our disposal.
With that in mind, do Hitler's actions shortly thereafter look like he's leading or following? Even some Jews thought the situation worth some caution. One Rabbi Wise (actually a Zionist himself), said in response to the metaphorical Jewish call to arms:-
Whereas there was for a short time considerable physical mistreatment of Jews, this phase may be considered virtually terminated.... A stabilization appears to have been reached in the field of personal mistreatment.... I feel hopeful that the situation which has caused such widespread concern throughout this country will soon revert to normal.
Well he wasn't heeded. The boycott continued, the Nazis counter-boycotted in April (with SA paramilitaries standing outside Jewish businesses with signs saying; "Germans! Defend yourselves! Don't buy from Jews!"). The laws kicking middle class Jews out of their positions were implemented then too.

No, again, it looks to me that while Hitler obviously wasn't a saint, neither were the Jewish ethnic supremacists on the other side. And unfortunately, as often happens with this sort of thing, ordinary people were caught in the middle.

So yeah, it does seem to me like there was a deliberate effort on the part of Zionists to deliberately escalate the situation, perhaps with a view to furthering the cause of a Palestinian homeland. And during the course of the war, that Zionist effort to "wholly destroy Germany" gradually morphed into, on the one hand, the rumours about demonic Nazi mistreatment of Jews that circulated among Jews in the resistances during the early part of the war, demonic rumours which eventually led to Jewish prisoners expecting to be gassed when they were herded into shower rooms at Majdanek, and being surprised when only hot water came out of the shower heads; and on the other hand, the anti-Nazi psychological warfrare propaganda put out on the Allied side (as exemplified by the human lampshade parade, the Holocaust propaganda movies made by rising Hollywood directors like Billy Wilder, etc., and the "evidence" offered by the Russians at Nuremberg).

Zionist propaganda which narrowed down from an initial wide range of crazy wartime atrocity propaganda, ranging from mass electrocutions, steam-cooked babies and gassing by various means (including Zyklon B), to the more apparently plausible use of Zyklon B in the now-familiar gas chambers-to-crematorium scenario, as first touted by Soviet Jewish propagandists. Soviet Jewish propagandists whose initial estimates of the figures in the Russian movies presented (along with some remnants of the earlier ludicrous claims) as evidence at Nuremberg, have gradually fallen over time, sometimes to a twentieth of the original figure - as with Majdanek, which Soviets initially estimated at 2,000,000 gassed in 13 "gas chambers", a figure that has recently fallen to some 50-70-odd thousand supposedly shepherded through a mere 2 gas chambers, which authorities are pretty sure really were gas chambers, even though they've conceded that the other 11 they'd been pretty sure were gas chambers before, they now concede were ... shower rooms (complete with windows, a boiler and a well outside), fumigation rooms (blue stained as one might expect), and the like.

Really, the more you look into this, the more it all starts to look very fishy indeed - and the more one starts to pinch oneself and wonder how anyone could possibly have fallen for it. And the more one starts to understand, perhaps, what people used to mean by the "Jewish Question." It never was ordinary Jews who were the problem, of course, any more than it's "ordinary Muslims" who are the problem with Islamist bs. It's just that at some point one comes to the realization that Jewish ethnic supremacists really are a thing, quite an active, powerful and influential thing throughout the history of the past couple of centuries. Perhaps it's worth considering whether the pathologizing meme "anti-Semitism", which (if it's directed at anything more than dull-witted tribal troglodytes beating up random Jews) lays ALL the blame on everyone EXCEPT Jews, has any more validity than the pathologizing meme "Islamophobia." For bonus points, one also starts to see how this pattern of rhetoric is repeated throughout the crybully victimology narrative of the Left (especially our dear, contemporary Left).

But as I say, while I'm in a combative mode about it at the moment, testing these ideas by trying to defend them, when I'm in a more sober, reflective mood, I'm really still not sure. There does appear to be an awful lot of weight on the other side, from people who do appear to be reputable. And it's easy to fall for the "plucky few against the establishment" romance of it.

I'm just rather shocked a) at how appallingly revisionists have been treated (imprisoning someone for 7 years for merely inviting David Irving - really?), b) how the Holocaust has been revised down and down over time (WAY down from what I'd always accepted from a very young age after watching The World At War), and c) how the remaining "big" claims seem increasingly silly and vastly unsubstantiated- e.g. 900,000 buried somewhere at Treblinka, though nobody seems to have found even one of the approximately 360 million logically necessary human teeth (although a recent archaeological investigation did find a shark's tooth from the time when Treblinka was a watery region, and some very old human remains near a Christian gravesite - claimed as evidence of a "mass grave" natch).

TheMudbrooker
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#29

Post by TheMudbrooker » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:48 am

gurugeorge wrote: c) how the remaining "big" claims seem increasingly silly and vastly unsubstantiated- e.g. 900,000 buried somewhere at Treblinka, though nobody seems to have found even one of the approximately 360 million logically necessary human teeth (although a recent archaeological investigation did find a shark's tooth from the time when Treblinka was a watery region, and some very old human remains near a Christian gravesite - claimed as evidence of a "mass grave" natch).
360 million logically necessary human teeth? I'll let you solve the equation for yourself.
900,000 X 32 = x
Show your work please.
"The remaining "big" claims seem increasingly silly and vastly unsubstantiated". So true.

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 8909
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#30

Post by free thoughtpolice » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:22 am

I know doxing is bad but...
guru george wrote:
I could still be wrong, obviously, but I can only call it as I see it. If I do 23andMe and it turns out I am a Jew, maybe I'll have to join the camp of righteous self-hating Jews!

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#31

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:53 am

gurugeorge wrote: Matt, I'm not going to respond to your strawmanning
I'm not strawmanning, you fucking mong. You made completely retarded assertions and got called on them.

gg: Amon Höss' testimony was given under torture.
Matt: Yeah, what about Kurt Gerstein's testimony?
gg: I'm not going to respond to your strawmanning.

gg: '6 million jews' is just a meme from a bunch of old newspaper headlines.
Matt: Here are international census figures showing 16 million jews in 1939 but only 10 million in 1946.
gg: Look at all these old newspaper headlines.

gg: There is no physical evidence of gas chambers or crematoriums.
Brive: Read this detailed, scholarly report on the tons of physical evidence of gas chambers & crematoriums.
gg: There is no physical evidence of gas chambers or crematoriums.

gg: Zyklon B was too highly flammable to have been used.
Mudbrooker: Actually, here are the facts & figures proving it wasn't.
gg: But this neo-nazi blog says it was.

gg: It would've been impossible to dispose of all those bodies.
Brive: Read this detailed, scholarly report explaining how it was entirely possible.
gg: But where are all the teeth?


This is how creationists respond to evidence of evolution. There is something seriously wrong with how your brain functions. Now fuck off and enjoy playing with Vickie in the cornfield.

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#32

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:13 pm

Kirbmarc wrote: It's really not even remotely suspicious to see the word "holocaust", which had already been used for the (also very public) Nazi book burnings, being associated to anti-Jewish actions of the Nazi regime in the press of English-speaking (and probably even French-speaking) countries.
"Holocaust" is Greek for 'burnt offering'. It's in the freaking Septuagint and had been used for ages in a variety of contexts. A word already in use, with the literal meaning of 'burning entirely', was a natural choice to describe the extermination of the jews.

As others have explained the number of 6 million was also a reasonable estimate of Eastern European Jews before World War Two.
Not just a "reasonable estimate": the actual census data compiled by several nations. The nazis gained control over c. 6 million European jews, and pretty much wiped them out.

They don't show up in the 1946 census data. !950? Still haven't shown up. 1970? Still haven't shown up. The only way to explain away this is to posit a vast, international conspiracy. Which, of course, is exactly what mentally ill conspiracy nuts do.

Matt Cavanaugh
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 11229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#33

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:23 pm

MacGruberKnows wrote: the point is, WTF is Vickie breathing?
Must be her own dulcet farts, considering she has her head up her ass.

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 8909
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#34

Post by free thoughtpolice » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:21 pm

Odd thing about conspiracy stuff and how the most likely explanations with the most reliable evidence is ditched in favor of wobbly assertions and sources that are dubious, if not provably wrong.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of non existence when it comes to bigfoot or alien technology to build the pyramids but if there are no vehicles remaining that were rigged to suffocate people then it is proof they didn't exist.
Prove them wrong on some point, they change the subject. Prove them wrong on all their points they say well I didn't really believe the holocaust didn't happen or that bigfoots definitely exist, I just am being a good skeptic by pointing out the weakness of your case.

Sunder
BPEx2
BPEx2
Posts: 3757
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#35

Post by Sunder » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:36 pm

Fucking hell.

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 5865
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#36

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:54 pm

Sunder wrote: Fucking hell.
In regards to...? Clumsy holocaust denial existing on the 'pit?

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#37

Post by gurugeorge » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:33 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I'm not strawmanning, you fucking mong. You made completely retarded assertions and got called on them.
C3 and C4 are the strawmen I was specifically referring to, as shown by my use of the word "therefore". If I wanted to present an apodeictic argument, I'd present an apodeictic argument, not a tentative questioning of the received wisdom.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: gg: Amon Höss' testimony was given under torture.
Matt: Yeah, what about Kurt Gerstein's testimony?
Which of the six conflicting versions of Kurt Gerstein's alleged testimony would you be referring to? For example, was it the case that "several thousand homosexuals [...] disappeared into the oven on a single day," as 4 versions say, or did several hundreds of homosexuals disappear over some days, as one version says? Or is this just me "sniping"?

And is it at all credible that 750 people were stuffed into a "gas-chamber" with a floor-area of 25 square metres? Or am I nitpicking?
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: gg: '6 million jews' is just a meme from a bunch of old newspaper headlines.
Matt: Here are international census figures showing 16 million jews in 1939 but only 10 million in 1946.
Proof by census is dubious (what are the criteria for a Jew for the purposes of the count?), which is why I'm not interested in going down that rabbit hole. Note also that the AJC says there, re. the European figure: "estimates based on reports received by the JDC from European sources." Well, I suppose that settles it then, better shut up - can't gainsay "European sources" received by the JDC now, can we?

At any rate, the "6 million in peril" meme cropping up again and again prior to WWII remains suspicious and symbolic-looking.

(By the way, given that the Auschwitz figure has dropped from 4 million to 1 million, or that the Majdanek figure has dropped from 22 million to 70,000, wouldn't that affect the magic 6 million figure somehow? Or does it always stay at the magic 6 million no matter how large or small individual camp estimates are?)
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: gg: There is no physical evidence of gas chambers or crematoriums.
Brive: Read this detailed, scholarly report on the tons of physical evidence of gas chambers & crematoriums.
A "detailed, scholarly report on tons of physical evidence" which amounts to an attempt to harmonize several bits of contradictory testimony with some blurry photographs.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: gg: Zyklon B was too highly flammable to have been used.
Mudbrooker: Actually, here are the facts & figures proving it wasn't.
Dealing with that elsewhere.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: gg: It would've been impossible to dispose of all those bodies.
Brive: Read this detailed, scholarly report explaining how it was entirely possible.
I don't think I said it would've been impossible, I said where are the remains of 900,000 bodies? (Specifically relating to Treblinka here, haven't yet looked into the Sobibor or Belzec stuff yet. But the article Brive linked is definitely challenging.) No evidence of those gigantic pits turned up on the LIDAR investigation in that Channel 5 archaeological investigation, that's for sure. A full football stadium is around 90,000, so we're talking about the burnt remains of ten football stadiums worth of people that are supposed to be buried somewhere around a relatively small camp area. (And just to note: there are several totally contradictory "plans" for the camp, and a model, from several different "eyewitness" sources.)
This is how creationists respond to evidence of evolution.
False equivalence. We're not talking about evidence in relation to an abstract theory, we're talking about evidence for a claimed fact that's on the same epistemological level as the facts that are in evidence.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: There is something seriously wrong with how your brain functions.
Yes, unfortunately it's the brain of a heretic. I thought you had the brain of a heretic too?
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Now fuck off and enjoy playing with Vickie in the cornfield.
That's wheatfields to you, thank you very much ;)

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#38

Post by gurugeorge » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:36 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote: but if there are no vehicles remaining that were rigged to suffocate people then it is proof they didn't exist.
Never mind vehicles, I haven't quibbled with there being some evidence of gas trucks, and I'm not too bothered about hypothetical gas tanks at the AR camps either, it's kind of plausible and I wouldn't expect there to be evidence of them.

But what about that core theme of the Holocaust that's engraved in all our minds? What about those famous buildings disguised as showers into which terrified human beings were herded and gassed in industrial quantities? That's the core theme. That's what I want to know is true or false.

Is the Holocaust a fact, or is it one of the world's great religions, a Big Lie that snowballed from humble beginnings in wartime psyops and whispered rumours, into a slander on the German people specifically, a guilt trip on White people generally, and the biggest narrative Ponzi Scheme in history, that forms the moral foundation of the entire Diversity Industry that's destroying Western culture right now?
"Everybody's telling you, told us, don't eat, don't eat, because it's hard to die when they give you the gas, because your stomach is so full - we knew we were going to the gas chamber, eh? But by some miracle - I don't know how, what, when - water came down, instead of the gas!"


So there we have an example of a survivor from one of the biggest supposed "death camps", Majdanek, who was terrified as a young girl by some rumour about gas coming out of shower heads, that absolutely doesn't fit with the story about Zyklon B being dropped through apertures in the roof, or lowered in cages (which comes from other eyewitness testimony that's often contradictory and often includes long-discredited atrocity porn elements that aren't part of the official story). Majdanek's figures have officially scaled back from an initial 22 million to 70,000, and from an initial 13 "gas chambers" which have turned out to be shower rooms and other types of ordinary rooms after all, to 2 "gas chambers", which aren't shower rooms and look like fumigation gas chambers with the heavy blue staining that all such rooms have in all the camps.

So you tell me what's going on here.

Does this mean the Nazis were nice guys and butter wouldn't melt in their mouths? No, these were slave-labour camps, with people torn from their homes, families split, etc., and people did die in them, and they were shot or hung for trying to escape. And before the end of the war, thousands did die from Typhus, starvation, etc. But was there a genocidal plan? Were there gas chambers? Were 6 million Jews gassed?
Prove them wrong on some point, they change the subject.
Projection, it's a helluva drug.

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 8909
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#39

Post by free thoughtpolice » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:19 pm

There were some survivors, she expected to get gassed but didn't. That disproves that others weren't gassed? She apparently was told that people were being gassed when they were being told they were going to the showers, I don't see where she says the gas was supposed to come out of the showerheads, but if she did maybe she was mistaken she was after all a little girl, or the person that told her was mistaken about the exact detail of how they were gassed. After all, you wouldn't expect anyone undergoing the gassing to be able survive and describe how it happened.
I actually knew 2 survivors of one of these camps. Their stories fit the official narrative, they were really decent people that had no reason to lie. Most survivors stories match the official narrative, as do the official records kept by the Germans, as does the discussions of captured Nazi officials that were being bugged without their knowledge.
Matt and Brive have been linking to their sources quite often, you not so much. Before I would reject well documented events, that I actually have known reliable sources that were eyewitnesses to, I want to see a dependable source that can back up their claims. The average kook on the internet or certified crackpots like Ernst Zundel of David Irving don't do it for me.
Some questions george, do you think those jews that escaped death camps and witnessed the disappearance of their families and neighbors are lying and do you pretty much agree with the Chariots of the Gods theory?

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 8909
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#40

Post by free thoughtpolice » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:06 pm

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... estimonies

By the way that neo-nazi website that you got the clumsily edited statement by a holocaust survivor from showed 30 seconds of an interview that was taken from the above youtube channel. Maybe you would care to look at what they really are saying rather than some poorly executed slaezy attempt at quote mining to try and discredit survivor stories.
There are a lot of hours of survivor testimonies there so maybe if you look hard enough you may find some real inconsistencies in their stories and not that half witted attempt to try to prove the shower ruse was a myth.
By the way, if you are asking how they disposed of the remains of all those people, you could fit the cremated remains of 5 or 10 people in a cubic foot. At that rate, the footings excavation of a good sized grocery or department store could hold a million or millions of people. That is assuming that a lot weren't just scattered around in the forest or other wilderness.
Pretty weak straws you are grasping at.

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 8909
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#41

Post by free thoughtpolice » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:56 pm

Projection, it's a helluva drug.
It seems to have you addicted to it.

TheMudbrooker
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#42

Post by TheMudbrooker » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:10 pm

Where are you getting your numbers George? 22 million at Majdanek? That's the first time I've seen that figure anywhere, could you please cite your source? 360 million teeth? As I mentioned above, that's a bit high for 900,000 people. In fact, if you were to accept the 6 million figure and assume full and complete dentition for all of them, you're still 168 million teeth too high. Where did that number come from?

CaptainFluffyBunny
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 5865
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#43

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:49 pm

Well, I'm no expert, but what did happen to the European Jews? I'm not sure their absence by the end of the war was adequately explained. I've spoken with survivors, heard compelling testimony and seen pictures of families that simply disappeared. Certainly anecdotal, and not proof, but every serious historian seems to have no doubt about the rough numbers and veracity of the holocaust.

Caramel's signature has "Judge me by the company I keep." In the case of holocaust deniers, that seems very poor company.

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 8909
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#44

Post by free thoughtpolice » Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:32 am


gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#45

Post by gurugeorge » Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:22 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... estimonies

By the way that neo-nazi website that you got the clumsily edited statement by a holocaust survivor from
Poisoning the well - "neo-Nazi" is only this horrific thing if the Holocaust is true, but that's what's at issue.
showed 30 seconds of an interview that was taken from the above youtube channel. Maybe you would care to look at what they really are saying rather than some poorly executed slaezy attempt at quote mining to try and discredit survivor stories.
There are a lot of hours of survivor testimonies there so maybe if you look hard enough you may find some real inconsistencies in their stories and not that half witted attempt to try to prove the shower ruse was a myth.
ffs, for the hundredth time, nobody's saying bad things didn't happen to the Jews during the war, bad things happened to Jews, bad things happened to other groups too. Slave labour camps are an evil, ripping families apart, etc., is an evil. The fact that tens of thousands of people died in the overcrowded Western camps at the end of the war from Typhus, and other diseases, malnutrition, dysentery (which if prolonged causes the skeletal look), etc., that's also a horrific tragedy (but note that this last is where the images and film clips come from - yet the sense we have that those demonstrate genocide is pure suggestion, and admittedly so, since historians no longer think that the camps those images come from - Dachau, Belsen, Ohrdruf- were gas chamber death camps).

What's in doubt is the specific Holocaust narrative: 1) an order from the Nazi command to exterminate the Jews of Europe, 2) effected by means of gas chambers disguised as showers using Zyklon B, 3) to the tune of 6 million dead Jews.

That narrative seems to have evolved from an initial bunch of over-the-top atrocity propaganda during the war (propaganda which included all sorts of crazy shit, including the use of gas chambers as one variant), concocted initially by Jewish resistance fighters and the like, who fed it to the British, who then fed it back to the Jews in the ghettos, which then got narrowed down and refined to the specific final shower/gas chamber narrative by the Russians (IOW the other, more extreme variants of atrocity propaganda were dropped - although a few of them still made their way to the Nuremberg trials, but reputable researchers don't believe them today), which then served as a handy means of de-Nazification after the war.

That "filtering down" process is suspicious in itself (i.e. redolent of a made-up narrative), as is the fact that the claims have continually been pushed back under pressure from revisionists, although that pressure is unacknowledged. e.g. filtered down from all the camps including the Western ones being death camps, to all the Polish camps, to just the AR camps now. Or from Auschwitz's famous tourist "gas chamber" that thousands of people have been shepherded through being now officially admitted to be a Russian reconstruction. Or from Majdanek's initial supposed 13 "gas chambers" have now been filtered down to 2.

Basically, everywhere you look, and the deeper you look into it, what we seem to be dealing with is The Incredible Shrinking Holocaust. And as I said, to me it looks more and more like a Ponzi scheme - it has to be reinforced more and more, believed in more and more, otherwise the whole house of cards comes down. Otherwise why the hell has it has been made illegal to question it? Why the hell should people be serving years in prison for questioning it? If sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if the Holocaust is such a slam-dunk issue, then surely the appropriate course would have been to continue arguing with the revisionists? (I hope you're not going to claim that the convenience of historians not having to take time out to deal with claims they say are false is good reason to stick a grandmother in jail for 5 years. Think of the poor historians!)
By the way, if you are asking how they disposed of the remains of all those people, you could fit the cremated remains of 5 or 10 people in a cubic foot. At that rate, the footings excavation of a good sized grocery or department store could hold a million or millions of people.
If you're talking about Treblinka, they weren't supposed to have been properly cremated as they would be in a crematorium, i.e. to ashes, the system was supposed to have been a makeshift system out in the open built on railway lines, which would still leave masses of bones, etc., which were then supposed to have been re-buried, and you're talking about a supposed 8-900,000 dead supposed to have been buried in 3 massive trenches. Moreover the claims were that the trenches were enormous - that's what the "eyewitness" testimony said, that's what the contradictory "plans" are supposed to show. And no evidence of any enormous trenches were found by the C5 archaeologist's LIDAR test.

But again, all this is still subject to revision for me. The difference is just that I'm not apriori ruling out revisionist claims like I would have done before. Like everyone else, I've long been familiar with the usual story, I've seen the same movies, documentaries and tv shows as everyone else, I looked through Nizkor, etc., when I was a believer, so the new thing for me is the revisionist stuff - and I have to say, it's really very cogent and powerful the more I look into it. Particularly Faurisson, Mantogno, Rudolf, Butz, etc.

Butz's book is a good place to start, it's one of the earliest revisionist texts, so out of date in some aspects, but there are some supplements in this 2015 edition that refer to some of the controversies since its initial publication in 1976.


free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 8909
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#47

Post by free thoughtpolice » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:26 pm

Regarding CODOH and Mantogno.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... lf-to.html
Why should I trust that Mantogno has solid sources? He titles his website as "open debate" but censors debate on his forum. I have told you that I knew eyewitnesses to these camps. They were saying the same things most historians believe to have happened and have confirmed from various sources, including documentation by the Nazis themselves. They had no reason to lie either.
Why didn't Venezia tell his story until many years after the war? Because he aided the Nazis in the death camps to save his own skin. Not surprising he wasn't too proud of that and even could have left him open to scorn and even retaliation. If this didn't happen, why would he confess to the shameful behavior of collaborating with genocide of his own people?
As for my poisoning the well when I described the youtube channel that posted that heavily edited video about the shower thing. If you looked at his other videos you can see him defending that crackpot white supremacist Chris Cantwell. You don't think the source is important? Regardless the video in no way was evidence that the gas chamber stories were untrue. Just another example of biased people grasping at weak straws to confirm their pre-conceived opinions.
When you say:
Basically, everywhere you look, and the deeper you look into it, what we seem to be dealing with is The Incredible Shrinking Holocaust
The consensus of historians is that the holocaust indeed did happen and the estimates have held steady for many years, unless the "everywhere you look" is a bunch of marginalized crackpots like Irving, Zundel, and a few denialists on the internet.
Mainstream historians don't spend all their time trying to track down and refute every pet theory the denialists come up with for the same reason Egyptologists don't spend a lot of time trying to refute the claims that space aliens built the pyramids. They are people that don't have credible sources and time after time get shot down and disproved yet continue to push the same BS. It is a waste of time. Like I'm doing right now.

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 8909
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#48

Post by free thoughtpolice » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:34 pm

Oh, and by the way, Eric Hunt, the maker of that last video you posted "The Last Days of the Big Lie.." is no longer a holocaust denier.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... enier.html

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#49

Post by jugheadnaut » Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:39 am

gurugeorge wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... estimonies

By the way that neo-nazi website that you got the clumsily edited statement by a holocaust survivor from
Poisoning the well - "neo-Nazi" is only this horrific thing if the Holocaust is true, but that's what's at issue.
Scratch a holocaust denial website a couple of microns and you'll almost always find white supremacism and anti-Semitism. The neo-Nazi label fits quite distinctly from their holocaust denial. They try to cloak it but just can't help themselves.

gurugeorge wrote: That narrative seems to have evolved from an initial bunch of over-the-top atrocity propaganda during the war (propaganda which included all sorts of crazy shit, including the use of gas chambers as one variant), concocted initially by Jewish resistance fighters and the like, who fed it to the British, who then fed it back to the Jews in the ghettos, which then got narrowed down and refined to the specific final shower/gas chamber narrative by the Russians (IOW the other, more extreme variants of atrocity propaganda were dropped - although a few of them still made their way to the Nuremberg trials, but reputable researchers don't believe them today), which then served as a handy means of de-Nazification after the war.
And more abject ignorance. Most of the Allied information about Nazi atrocities received during the war came from Enigma intercepts (remember those?) From those intercepts, they knew about the Einsarzgruppen, about trains shipping Jews to the East, even death figures from the camps reported directly by the SS, which the Allies originally attributed to horrific conditions. They also had high quality airborne surveillance pictures of Auschwitz-Birknau, although most of those weren't studied until after the war. In 1944, the Vrba-Wetzler Report authored by two Auchwitz escapees was passed to the Allies. Far from it being full of "crazy shit", modern day historians believe it had laudable accuracy given its ambitious scope.


gurugeorge wrote: That "filtering down" process is suspicious in itself (i.e. redolent of a made-up narrative), as is the fact that the claims have continually been pushed back under pressure from revisionists, although that pressure is unacknowledged. e.g. filtered down from all the camps including the Western ones being death camps, to all the Polish camps, to just the AR camps now. Or from Auschwitz's famous tourist "gas chamber" that thousands of people have been shepherded through being now officially admitted
to be a Russian reconstruction. Or from Majdanek's initial supposed 13 "gas chambers" have now been filtered down to 2.
And back to the completely spurious argument that because some figures concerning Nazi atrocities were wildly exaggerated in the close aftermath of the war, all figures supporting a massive genocide, even when based on completely different and much more solid evidence can be subject to dismissal on their face. It's a tangential point, since Majdanek clearly had the most exaggerated estimates, but you just love making shit up that is even more exaggerated. Please find me a reference that shows a claim of 13 gas chambers there. Or your previous figure of 22 million dead. Just goes to the extreme lack of rigor of your putative thought processes.
gurugeorge wrote: Basically, everywhere you look, and the deeper you look into it, what we seem to be dealing with is The Incredible Shrinking Holocaust.
Only to someone deep in the throes of confirmation bias, as you are. You come to an idiotic conclusion based on two garbage arguments, and then find a way to dismiss anything contradicting these conclusions. Eye witness testimonies? Can all be thrown away, because you can find a handful of inaccuracies in a few testimonies. Unless, of course, you can find a snippet of one that you believe supports your argument. Contemporaneous Nazi documents? Soviet forgeries. Pre and post war census results? Unreliable, because they don't rigorously validate ethnicity. Speaking of which, is it your claim that millions of Jews in post-war censuses were hiding their Jewish identification in a coordinated effort to manufacture a holocaust story? If not please elaborate on your dismissal of census data, which, BTW, is the primary source of the 6 million figure, not a summation of death estimates from the various camps. Hence there was never a need to amend the 6 million figure after historians concluded the original death estimates from Aushwitz-Birknau and Majdanek were way too high.
gurugeorge wrote: If you're talking about Treblinka, they weren't supposed to have been properly cremated as they would be in a crematorium, i.e. to ashes, the system was supposed to have been a makeshift system out in the open built on railway lines, which would still leave masses of bones, etc., which were then supposed to have been re-buried, and you're talking about a supposed 8-900,000 dead supposed to have been buried in 3 massive trenches. Moreover the claims were that the trenches were enormous - that's what the "eyewitness" testimony said, that's what the contradictory "plans" are supposed to show. And no evidence of any enormous trenches were found by the C5 archaeologist's LIDAR test.
The Treblinka death camp had access to large excavators used in the gravel pit of the nearby labor camp, and they did indeed dig deep trenches for bodies.
http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/pic/bp01.jpg
A pit full of bodies 10 m deep covered with railway ties could easily fuel a pyre, burning over several days that nearly fully cremates the bodies, leaving just cremains. But let's talk about the full picture at Treblinka. A small, insignificant village railway station is rebuilt by the Nazis to look more impressive. Trains from every Jewish ghetto in the area are sent there on a daily basis, with no indication where they go afterwards. Meanwhile the ghettos empty, and nearly everyone on the trains disappears forever. The LIDAR survey you mentioned found a sandy area from which a shark tooth was excavated, which you also mentioned because you thought it was a point in your favor. But actually, it's conclusive evidence that to hide whatever was going on, the SS was willing to bring in many truckloads of sand from the nearby quarry (at a time the Wehrmacht was running desperately short of fuel). Did you think at all about why they wanted to go to such great lengths to hide things? Furthermore, the survey pointed the way to the ruins of the gas chamber, which had bricks confirming Sonderkommando testimony that the gas chamber was designed to look like a ritual Jewish bathhouse. What's the only real conclusion here?

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 9707
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#50

Post by Kirbmarc » Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:10 am

Otherwise why the hell has it has been made illegal to question it? Why the hell should people be serving years in prison for questioning it? If sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if the Holocaust is such a slam-dunk issue, then surely the appropriate course would have been to continue arguing with the revisionists?
Because many legislators thought that through banning Holocaust denial they could curb neo-fascism and neo-nazism. In many European countries where Holocaust denial is illegal it's also illegal to use Nazi symbols. It's the same reason why many are pushing for hate speech laws in an attempt to curb racism. I don't think that those bans are wise, or productive, but that's the rationale that people who support those bans offer.

As to why historians refuse to argue with the negationist/revisionist bunch, well, many biologists also refuse to argue with creationists, while no astronomer or geologist argues with flat-earthers.

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 8909
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#51

Post by free thoughtpolice » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:41 am


Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 9707
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#52

Post by Kirbmarc » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:54 pm

I SO want this movie to be made one day, especially if we they can still have Nicolas Cage as Fu Manchu. It'd be the best campy shlockfest/semi-parody ever put on screen. "This...is my Mecca! Ahahahahahaha!"

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 8909
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#53

Post by free thoughtpolice » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:25 pm

Nicolas Cage, one of my 2 least favorite actors, the other being Jeff Goldblum. There was however one scene he was in that made the whole movie "The Wicker Man" worth watching:

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 9707
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Refutation of Holocaust Denialism

#54

Post by Kirbmarc » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:50 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:25 pm
Nicolas Cage, one of my 2 least favorite actors, the other being Jeff Goldblum. There was however one scene he was in that made the whole movie "The Wicker Man" worth watching:
Nic Cage can't play a normal human being. If you ask him to show normal human emotions he's going to be dull and boring. Just let him go crazy on stage, and in the right kind of movie (something as insane and ridiculous as "She-Werewolves of the SS") he's freaking hilarious. He was pitch perfect as the crazy father/vigilante in Kick Ass.

He's like Tim Curry or Christopher Walken. Those aren't actors you want to under-emote and be subtle. No, you want them to go over the top and batshit insane, because then they're incredibly entertaining to watch. They're not good actors, but they're enjoyable actors.

Post Reply