Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

101. Comment #162209 by AmericanGodless on April 16, 2008 at 10:50 am

nother person --

Thanks for your "late" post. I haven't watched all of this conversation yet, and I look forward to it. The Bronowski series is excellent, and I'm glad to hear that Lawrence Krauss brings it up in the conversation. I think that it should be required viewing in schools, though the science may be too dated. But it is the philosophy behind the science that is his important message.

It is unfortunate that the "Ascent of Man" was tied up in copyrights for so long, and could be distributed only as an educational series in an unpopular tape format. Now that it is available as DVD's, I don't know if anyone is buying it.

The Bell Labs films were great, too. I remember "My Mr. Sun" and "Hemo the Magnificent." I'd love to see them again, just for nostalgia's sake. I remember an animated chloroplast in the "Sun" video ducking behind a curtain as the narrator explained that we didn't know how he used sunlight to split the water molecule. He peeked out and said "And darned well going to stay that way." Then as a college undergrad I wrote a research paper on the subject. I ought to look up what's been learned about it since then.

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

102. Comment #162210 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 10:53 am

Now that it is available as DVD's, I don't know if anyone is buying it.

I did :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

103. Comment #162237 by The Hogfather on April 16, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Wow! Both Dawkins and Krauss are great in this discussion. Krauss really impresses me, my favourite quote from Krauss is when he said:-

"The world would be a better place `sic` if we were just to accept it for what it is"

Other Comments by The Hogfather

104. Comment #162265 by 7Fred7 on April 16, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Comment #161853 by DasSquid on April 15, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Is it just me, or did ASMarques post make absolutely no fucking sense at all?

No, it's not just you.

Other Comments by 7Fred7

105. Comment #162331 by Matt7895 on April 16, 2008 at 4:06 pm

We have a holocaust denier here now?

New low.

Other Comments by Matt7895

106. Comment #162340 by exorcist on April 16, 2008 at 4:51 pm

What a great debate... or discussion, rather. This site is so very refreshing after having to listen to or watch the nonsense in everyday media. The phrase "A clear-thinking oasis" really sums it up very well. Thanks so much for posting these great videos and articles!

Other Comments by exorcist

107. Comment #162435 by dyak on April 17, 2008 at 1:17 am

Re Science education. In Australia & the US - don't know about UK or anywhere else, one really dumb thing science teachers do is get 9 and 10 year old kids to dissect frogs or mice in the name of "science".

Sickening for young kids to see that an animal's life is destroyed just so they can cut it up. The philosophical issues raised are simply ignored. In teacher training one of the first things I learned was classification of bugs etc - by removing them from their habitat, killing them....

Why not start off by encouraging interest in the way creatures live? Doing violence to things is not only violent, it de-emphasises fascination, wonder; science as a way of thinking, observing...

Learning about animal behaviour would be a much more sensible place to start and spend a LOT of time on (dissecting can first be done at university level). And surely a good knowledge of animal behaviour leads naturally into a practical understanding of evolution.

Other Comments by dyak

108. Comment #162691 by hendricius on April 17, 2008 at 9:12 am

Can anyone tell me what they are talking about at 22:30 on http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7678705168667874529 ?

thanks, I do not get the joke ^^.

Other Comments by hendricius

109. Comment #162700 by MarcCountry on April 17, 2008 at 9:42 am

Somewhat interesting, but, unfortunately, I was ultimately overwhelmed by my irritation with the meandering, parenthetical, logorrhoea of Dr. Krauss, which barely left a pause in which Dr. Dawkins could speak.

Suffice to say, I was not 'seduced'.

Other Comments by MarcCountry

110. Comment #162747 by macspoofing on April 17, 2008 at 11:50 am

I was ultimately overwhelmed by my irritation with the meandering, parenthetical, logorrhoea of Dr. Krauss, which barely left a pause in which Dr. Dawkins could speak.

My thoughts exactly! It was incredibly frustrating to listen to Krauss. He completely monopolized the discussion at certain points. During those times, he either re-iterated the same point, over and over again, or it took him forever to get to his point. Meanwhile, Dawkins is sitting there unable to get a word in because Krauss does not pause for sentences or paragraphs.

Other Comments by macspoofing

111. Comment #162859 by ASMarques on April 17, 2008 at 3:24 pm

I was ultimately overwhelmed by my irritation with the meandering, parenthetical, logorrhoea of Dr. Krauss, which barely left a pause in which Dr. Dawkins could speak.

My thoughts exactly!

I'm inclined to agree.

Besides being a bore, Krauss also seems to possess a fixed set of beliefs and a very limited imagination. This became obvious to me when I viewed his wild reaction to the very interesting Penrose & Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory of consciousness presentation by Hameroff at the 2006 Beyond Belief encounter. He is not alone. Dennett, for instance, actually claims to be a consciousness-deprived zombie, which I for one feel tempted to believe he somehow must be, since my own subjective consciousness is so forceful and directly experienced that I can hardly conceive of anyone but a real zombie to be capable of claiming he is not conscious.

Dawkins may be the most articulate of the lot, but in my opinion he, like Hitchens, Harris and other "new atheist activists" or "Brights" or whatever it is they call themselves, is so eager to promote atheism as the universal panacea against suicide bombers, he falls widely off the mark. Apparently, according to these good folks, the suicide bombers who throw themselves against the Israeli occupiers of their land and their American enablers are a consequence of religion and popular girlie metaphysics (apparently even when the suicides are women), not of Jewish occupation and the lack of Palestinian or Iraqi tanks, helicopters and warplanes...

Well, they're all entitled to their silly reductionist certainties. I consider myself an atheist relative to absurd gods with terrestrial biographies, but I cannot but reflect on the possibility of some sort of pan-consciousness process-oriented theory along Whitehead's lines becoming necessary to account for the real world around our own subjectivities (I opt for the plural rather than for a conspiracy of appearances aimed at deceiving me personally).

This might require postulating subjective experiences associated with every quantum event, from what Teillhard de Chardin called the "elementary psychism" at the "particle" (i.e. small "eventual" part within a circumscribed causally-tight context) level, to the somehow on-going collapse of the whole universe's wave function (a speculative kind of experience certainly unimaginable to such puny creatures as we humans are) in connection with the ontology of what we might call the global event itself, at once its own cause, causality and effect. If so, an interesting parallel could be drawn to the triune god of medieval theology and the spiration relationships within its three-in-one nature, though, of course, it would have little to do with any perception of an anthropomorphic "divinity."

Now, that would be an interesting theme for debate, rather than the silly pretence that suicide bombers blow themselves up because they are horny for the seventy virgins, or the endless preaching of the unexamined "Holocaust" cult...

My take, for what it's worth.

Other Comments by ASMarques

112. Comment #162882 by ivo on April 17, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Re Comment #161260 by Milton.

I think you're spot on. A big part of the fun of science is its detective story charm, of how the truth is subtly teased out of nature by painstakingly collecting clues and thinking cleverly. The problem is, it is usually so much more *technical* than your average trial drama or detective novel, and therefore it's more difficult to make a good story out of it. Thus popularizers of science just announce the answers, i.e., the facts, counting on the sheer awe effect. But this just misses the whole point of how science works, and may actually become boring after a while. What I often find much more fascinating is the way we got to those facts and theories, and the process of fitting them together in order to get a coherent picture which actually makes sense.

As the success of the Experts TV series shows, the lay public may actually be ready for something like: "How scientists deduced that atoms exist and even measured their nucleus' diameter, without ever being able to see them!" or "How Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the Earth- in 240 BC"

Or maybe not

Other Comments by ivo

113. Comment #162889 by alovrin on April 17, 2008 at 4:10 pm

We had a terrible feed from the house sound, which meant that our only source for those Q&A mics was ruined. So I had to use our shotgun mic, which was on the camera as a last resort, for the questions.

You need an experienced sound recordist to sort out this kind of thing for you.

Other Comments by alovrin

114. Comment #162897 by ivo on April 17, 2008 at 4:23 pm

To ASMarques:

flirting with Teilhard de Chardin, are we?

Here's the legendary The Phenomenon of Man review by Peter Medawar, always worth re-reading:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/phenomenon-of-man.html

"... and its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself"

Other Comments by ivo

115. Comment #162931 by ASMarques on April 17, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Said ivo:

flirting with Teilhard de Chardin, are we?

Not quite. His "Christological" religious talk looks awkward to me, but he may have a point concerning the presence of an elementary "psychic" side to the behaviour of physical particles. If "consciousness" -- you may prefer the term "subjective experience" to avoid any illegitimate anthropomorphism -- is indeed a fundamental given of the "Weltstoff," to use Teilhard's terminology, what he was saying was not very far from such philosophical views as Whitehead's pan-experientialism or the direction several "quantum consciousness" proponents have been taking lately.

And yes, I know well Peter Medawar's writings and I've read his essay on the good father's ideas. I'm afraid I'm not going with either of them all the way. I have this nasty habit of using my own brain as first and last resource.

Other Comments by ASMarques

116. Comment #163016 by duala on April 17, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Richard was talking about science tv programs and mentioned 3, Carl Sagan's cosmos, David Attenborough's series and another. Can anyone name the other? I can't find it anymore.

Other Comments by duala

117. Comment #163047 by junkanoo on April 17, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Can anyone find the edits that Richard made on the Wikipedia Natural Selection article?

Other Comments by junkanoo

118. Comment #163049 by ASMarques on April 17, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Richard was talking about science tv programs and mentioned 3, Carl Sagan's cosmos, David Attenborough's series and another. Can anyone name the other? I can't find it anymore.

That was Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man", a very good TV series from the early 70s. It had its weak moments though. I can remember old Jacob near a small pond he guaranteed had been flushed with the ashes from 4 (four) million corpses from Auschwitz.

Surprise, surprise, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

Actually any excavation on those grounds will show us the very high level of the phreatic water table that would make it impossible to burn any bodies in pits as alleged by the "eyewitnesses," and of course the 4 million has now been drastically revised downwards to "about one and a half official million -- no alteration to the magic 6 million, of course -- , and all the Bronowskis of this world will parrot the new received knowledge from the "Holocaust scholars" without even throwing it a critical sidewise glance, since it's wonderful Jews and abominable Germans we are talking about.

Such is the shallowness of the human mind under the spell of evil dehumanizing war propaganda.

It's Einstein writing his interesting letters to Roosevelt (four of them, and at least the third one still unpublished), Bohr refusing Heisenberg's suggested pact at Copenhagen and going to Los Alamos instead, Steven Pinker putting his name to petitions asking for the imposition of censorship on David Irving (not even a "Holocaust" denier, though basically an honest man), Dawkins calling "liars" to those who have gone to far more trouble than he has to uncover the truth...

It's the endless human comedy, I guess. On the other hand it may be that the countdown has begun.

RIP, Jacob Bronowski.

Other Comments by ASMarques

119. Comment #163059 by and7barton on April 17, 2008 at 11:39 pm

The above debate was very good - No stupid audience getting up and coming out with 6th form level comments like - "But you can't prove there ISN'T a God, nya-nya....."
In fact ALL the audience seemed to be atheists. There were NO dissenting voices, so the level of the topics rose a good deal higher than they would have normally, and Dawkings was able to expand the boundaries of the discussion and the scientific discussion to a greater extent than usual. Very stimulating - I couldn't leave the discussion..... too captivating to walk out on, even for making coffee. (That last bit was a lie actually, I paused it several times for this purpose).

Other Comments by and7barton

120. Comment #163796 by keith on April 19, 2008 at 3:47 am

Richard Dawkins is often asked to justify why he won't compromise when selling evolution to the faithful. The accusation often sounds something like this:
"You're alienating the very people you, and the rest of us atheists, are trying to reach. By being so unbending and not meeting the religiously-minded half way, you put them off from the start and hobble your chances of getting them to listen to you. This is counter-productive. You have to be smart, you have to wrap it up in nice paper, you have to market it. Basically, you have to sugar-coat the pill".

We all have our reasons for doing things and RD must have his for writing The God Delusion, giving lectures and making TV programs about religion. Even so, I can't help but think that what impels him to do these things is more of a gut-reaction to bullshit and lying than a rational desire to un-convert the converted. Though he may, in fact, want the latter, I think this is more of a rationalisation of his actions, more of a by-product than the product itself. It's possible that the real driving force behind his campaign is simple exasperation that the truth is being corrupted by an inane idea. And more annoying still is that some people on his own side don't seem to mind.

By rights, the religious should be grateful that they have such a forthright opponent, rather than one who tries to win them over by cunning. Whether atheists should also be grateful is less certain. I personally feel much happier with the Dawkins approach than with that espoused by Lawrence Krauss, though I can see his reasoning. Still, as was stated in the discussion between them, maybe there is room for both approaches.

Other Comments by keith

121. Comment #163804 by Peacebeuponme on April 19, 2008 at 4:34 am

keith

It's possible that the real driving force behind his campaign is simple exasperation that the truth is being corrupted by an inane idea.

I think Richard has stated pretty explicitly several times that what he cares about is the truth.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

122. Comment #163835 by keith on April 19, 2008 at 6:15 am

Peacebeuponme,

You're absolutely right, I too think I may be guilty of unnecessarily psycho-analysing something which RD has already stated explicitly several times. I suppose I just find it odd that having said that the truth, rather than changing minds, is his main concern, he is often taken to task over the wisdom of his blunt approach when it comes to winning people over.

I think the question of the usefulness of RD's strategy for proselytising purposes is largely beside the point. And maybe it should be stated more loudly that winning converts isn't his main objective. Perhaps then we could drop the discussions about best strategies: If you want to convert, use the Krauss/de Grass Tyson Method; if you want the unvarnished truth, plump for Richard Dawkins, but don't imagine that the two methods have the same goal. It's a case of 'horses for courses'.

Other Comments by keith

123. Comment #163912 by thomasR on April 19, 2008 at 9:16 am

Lawrence Krauss mentions at 1:50 2/12 (YouTube) that he couldn't be a doctor.

I think it's interesting to note that neither apparently could Darwin: he dropped out of medical school in 1827.

Speaking as a failed medic myself, the training _is_ immensely boring. Intellectual enquiry is discouraged in favour of memorising a large standard set of facts.

This peacock tail filter ensures that only the most committed and intellectually conformist people get to be doctors.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. A patient doesn't want a surgeon who takes an experimental approach to surgery. However, it may be a bad thing for medical research.

Other Comments by thomasR

124. Comment #163922 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 9:36 am

This peacock tail filter ensures that only the most committed and intellectually conformist people get to be doctors.

I knew it! House is just a TV show.

Other Comments by Bonzai

125. Comment #163924 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 9:41 am

ZekeCDN,

I can't recall whether Krauss was on Richard's informal short list of Americans who would make interesting candidates for his Oxford Chair (I'm fairly certain that Carolyn Porco and Neil DeGrasse Tyson were mentioned ... and that my own first choice, Steven Pinker, was not), but if so this sure was a heck of an interview!

I don't know if any scientist still active in research would want a position like that. It is a position perfect for senior statesmen of science at the end of the research careers such as Dawkins.

Other Comments by Bonzai

126. Comment #163927 by keith on April 19, 2008 at 9:45 am

ThomasR,

This peacock tail filter ensures that only the most committed and intellectually conformist people get to be doctors.

You must surely know how this sentence sounds to people who don't know you, people who only know that it was written by a failed medic?

Other Comments by keith

127. Comment #164140 by Elles on April 19, 2008 at 3:51 pm

But non-stick frying pans ARE wonderful! You can make eggs, french toast, bacon, sausage, Tuna Helper, fried dumplings...

Other Comments by Elles

128. Comment #164958 by CruciFiction on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Excellent program, and thanks for providing this important discussion to the world!

Lawrence Krauss brought up the notion (one that is often heralded by theists) that, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

However, a web posting by the "Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University" argues the contrary -- that in probability theory, "absence of evidence IS ALWAYS evidence of absence":

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/absence-of-evid.html

I'm somewhat surprised that neither of them were familiar with this perspective from Bayesian reasoning.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

129. Comment #166347 by bitofinger on April 23, 2008 at 7:21 am

Comment #161853 by DasSquid on April 15, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Is it just me, or did ASMarques post make absolutely no fucking sense at all?

Comment #162265 by 7Fred7 on April 16, 2008 at 1:18 pm
No, it's not just you.

Agreed, Fred and DasSquid. ASMarques' deliberate ambiguity about his/her point seems like an attempt to sound lofty and intellectual, but comes off far more elitist and snobbish. Marques talks as if he or she is well above us commoners, and is unabashed in flaunting this disposition.

As for the stunningly and embarrassingly distorted view that the Holocaust is a religion based on (do I read too much into this?) the falsified deaths of millions of people in order to promote a religious world-view, or perhaps bring the world economy out of recession, there is really no good that can come out of arguing with someone like ASMarques.

You may as well try to convince the head of the Ku Klux Klan that humans share a common ancestor with apes. And we all know how ridiculous that would be.

Other Comments by bitofinger

130. Comment #167244 by SolarUpNote on April 23, 2008 at 7:10 pm

I thought the key point was made by Krauss when he said the evolution is the "straw-man", and the real issue is "scientific materialism".

When I talk to Christians, the "materialism" is the issue that's most upsetting.

Other Comments by SolarUpNote

131. Comment #168162 by lucascantor on April 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm

The entire thing on Google Video in one piece: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8340051764394512945&hl=en

Other Comments by lucascantor

132. Comment #170347 by ASMarques on April 27, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Said bitofinger:

ASMarques' deliberate ambiguity about his/her point seems like an attempt to sound lofty and intellectual,

My point is not ambiguous at all, it's as straightforward as you can possibly imagine. It's simply this (count the words): the alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews by the Germans (extermination, homicidal gas chambers, approximately 6 million murdered Jews) never happened. You may follow the latest developments in the "Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer" comments thread and the "Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions" one, where our little debate began.

but comes off far more elitist and snobbish. Marques talks as if he or she is well above us commoners, and is unabashed in flaunting this disposition.

Interesting comment, bitofinger. It may be the impression you get from the fact that I consciously avoid replying to insulting or vulgar comments from childish adversaries in like fashion. That may well be what gives you an impression of superiority or aloofness.

Well, so be it, but what's the relevance to the allegedly historical facts under discussion, I wonder. Why the constant need to address the man or woman (or thing, as one of our friends on this forum suggested by using "it" in addition to your own "he" or "she") instead of the arguments?

As for the stunningly and embarrassingly distorted view that the Holocaust is a religion based on (do I read too much into this?) the falsified deaths of millions of people

You'll have a better understanding of what I mean if you attempt to define what you yourself mean by "religion."

in order to promote a religious world-view, or perhaps bring the world economy out of recession, there is really no good that can come out of arguing with someone like ASMarques.

Two comments on that one:

1) No close connection to the economy and its current recession, as far as I'm concerned.

2) Obviously some good may come out of any rational debate: one or both sides may end up with a better comprehension of the topics under discussion. I may be wrong and I'm ready to hear the other side's arguments and reply to them in a calm, and I hope informed, fashion. Are you too?

You may as well try to convince the head of the Ku Klux Klan that humans share a common ancestor with apes. And we all know how ridiculous that would be.

Your comparison looks to me like an easy way out of the frustration of not being able to argue some matter you attribute great importance to. I wonder what might that be. Some peculiar bit of religious humbug, perhaps?...
;^)

Other Comments by ASMarques

133. Comment #170618 by Fillyfresh on April 27, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Hey Richard,

Please take me on the road as your personal sound engineer. Ill help you kill religion no problemo.

;)

Ok ill do video too...

Other Comments by Fillyfresh

134. Comment #171358 by ASMarques on April 28, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Said bitofinger:

As for the stunningly and embarrassingly distorted view that the Holocaust is a religion

Here are the first words of an interesting new text by French intellectual Alain Soral -- yes, there are still a few survivors in Voltaire's country -- concerning Monsieur Le Pen's latest slip of the tongue:

"Monsieur Le Pen a tort, la chambre à gaz n'est pas un détail.
"Monsieur Le Pen a profondément tort, la chambre à gaz est tout sauf un point de détail, c'est même aujourd'hui, plus qu'hier encore, la religion, le dogme autour duquel tourne toute l'époque contemporaine.
"Dans l'ordre du sacrifice fondateur, la chambre à gaz a remplacé la croix du christ."

Quick translation:

"Monsieur Le Pen is wrong, the gas chamber is not a detail.
"Monsieur Le Pen is profoundly wrong, the gas chamber is anything but a detail, it's today, even more than yesterday, the religion, the dogma around which revolves the whole contemporary epoch.
"In the foundational sacrifice order, the gas chamber has replaced the cross of the christ."

Complete text here:
http://www.toutsaufsarkozy.com/cc/article01/EkpAupFlVpGNIzwNRQ.shtml

Other Comments by ASMarques

135. Comment #171636 by Fsbof90 on April 28, 2008 at 4:31 pm

The only bad thing about being in Canada is that there is no evolution or religion debate. Having no debate, we don't need debaters which means no Richard Dawkins ! :(

Edit: I just noticed there were events in Vancouver... I just wish it was in Montreal :P

Other Comments by Fsbof90

136. Comment #172221 by bitofinger on April 29, 2008 at 11:02 am

. Comment #170347 by ASMarques on April 27, 2008 at 4:46 pm

My point is not ambiguous at all, it's as straightforward as you can possibly imagine. It's simply this (count the words): the alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews by the Germans (extermination, homicidal gas chambers, approximately 6 million murdered Jews) never happened.

A bit of revisionist history, Marques? The comment here was not part of your original posting. The ambiguity and superiority complex charges stand.

It may be the impression you get from the fact that I consciously avoid replying to insulting or vulgar comments from childish adversaries in like fashion.

Your reference to the comment which you may find insulting was only in my repost, again, after-the-fact. I'm sensing a pattern, here.

Why the constant need to address the man or woman (or thing, as one of our friends on this forum suggested by using "it" in addition to your own "he" or "she") instead of the arguments?

Constant? As if we have spoken on the subject repeatedly? I will explain further why I spoke more of you than of the argument itself in a moment. In the meantime, if you insist on being referred to as "it" in the third person, very well, but I think it will lead to confusion.

Your comparison looks to me like an easy way out of the frustration...

I'm not frustrated at all. I'm simply stating my opinion.

...of not being able to argue some matter you attribute great importance to.

It's always fascinating to me when Holocaust deniers denigrate one of the greatest lessons we humans will ever learn about ourselves: that our vile, brutal and animalistic past is nowhere near over.

As far as arguing with you about "some matter", I suppose you believe hundreds if not thousands of people conspired to cover up JFK's assassination, or that the United States never landed a man on the moon, or perhaps you still attend Flat Earth Society meetings. It would then be natural to conclude that you think millions of Jews faked their own deaths and had millions of other people cover it up, and in doing so achieved deceit at such a clandestine level that only a select few know the real truth, a truth which has only recently begun to come out, sixty some-odd years later.

The KKK reference was simply a continuation along these lines. I wonder if you believe evolution is a theory or fact. Not that I would spend the time reading through your prolific postings to find out. Taking 10 seconds to paste your writings into a word document and do a word count is one thing. Researching every link you post in order to determine its source and validity when history has already rehashed this subject to death is another.

This is why there is no point arguing the facts with someone like you. I can only imagine what farcical misadventure haunts the mind of someone who (count the words) posts one essay on this blog 5,693 words long, and another nearly 4,000 words long, about dismally barren facts and evidence of the most massive conspiracy ever.

I wonder what might that be. Some peculiar bit of religious humbug, perhaps?...

Again, wholly unclear. If you are saying that I am a religious nut-job in disguise, nothing could be farther from the truth. There are not many people on earth to my left. Not sure where that leaves us, but I may think of more to say later or edit this post.

Other Comments by bitofinger

137. Comment #172306 by ASMarques on April 29, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Said bitofinger:

Your reference to the comment which you may find insulting was only in my repost, again, after-the-fact. I'm sensing a pattern, here.

Why is it that "Holocaust" peddlers always seem to think "obliquely"? Never face the facts squarely. Always procrastinate or derive and start talking about something else, preferably the secret intentions or faulty character or naughty politics of your opposer. Anything but his arguments. How boring.

You say I found something you said insulting? Where in heaven did you get that idea? I wasn't talking about anything you said, my dear fellow. I was replying to your accusation that I talked down to the good folks of this forum and exhibited "a superiority complex" or whatever it was. Well, you certainly sounded like a red-neck creationist talking about those terrible atheists who think they are his betters, but I didn't find you insulting in the least. My sensitiveness is not that delicate. In fact, I was explaining to you that your (wrong) impression might be due to the fact that I consciously avoid replying to insulting or vulgar comments (not yours as far as I'm concerned) from childish adversaries in like fashion.

Okay. Enough chitchat. Down to business.

As far as arguing with you about "some matter", I suppose you believe hundreds if not thousands of people conspired to cover up JFK's assassination, or that the United States never landed a man on the moon, or perhaps you still attend Flat Earth Society meetings.

Here we go again. Flat Earths, faked moon walks, anything but the slightest bit of evidence you might send my way concerning the vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate an entire race in the hope future historians would be at a loss to determine what had happened to them, with no plan, no written orders at any level, no assigned method of mass murder or bureaucratic control, leaving it to the imagination of a whole bunch of telepathic improvisers who then came up with mass execution by steam, electrocution, non-toxic Diesel exhaust, Zyklon B insecticide, lime train car, pedal-driven brain-bashing machine (all attested to in the Nuremberg trials), and no remaining vestiges in any of the precisely located alleged murder sites. And, of course, survivors galore from such "extermination camps" as Auschwitz more than 60 years later".

Some extermination...

This is why there is no point arguing the facts with someone like you. I can only imagine what farcical misadventure haunts the mind of someone who (count the words) posts one essay on this blog 5,693 words long, and another nearly 4,000 words long, about dismally barren facts and evidence of the most massive conspiracy ever.

How about a decent reply instead of the usual crying and gnashing of teeth? Like, say, some evidence for:

1) The extermination.
2) The gas chambers.
3) The approximately 6 million murdered Jews.

Yeah, I know. Lots of folks swear they saw with their own eyes the laws of physics being suspended in Auschwitz (coke crematories belching fire and smoke, mass killings in Krema II but no cyanide compounds on the walls etc.). Sure. Lots of folks swear they saw the Virgin Mary and all the saints of heaven too. Give me a break.

Other Comments by ASMarques

138. Comment #172312 by al-rawandi on April 29, 2008 at 1:08 pm

bitofinger,





I have debated (I use the term loosely) ASMarques before. He posted a list of supposed fabrications of the Holocaust. He provided no citations.


When asked about sources he said "You have to trust me."


When asked why it was that this enormous hoax, the greatest every perpetrated in the history of time, involving every Jew, and every government, handing out identical (matching) survivor accounts, was only discovered by bigots, liars, the mentally deranged, liars, discredited non-scholars, and world renouned racists, he had no appreciable reply. How is it that it is only the least credible and most dishonest people who have discovered this hoax?

So convenient. Apparently everyone with a conscious is in fact without conscious and simply lies. While a group of feculent human detritus have managed the moral integrity to figure it all out.

No answer was forth coming.


So just "trust" him.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

139. Comment #172345 by ASMarques on April 29, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Said al-rawandi:

No answer was forth coming.

Not true, as you well know. Again here is the answer (and the claims, with all due apologies to the moderators, but I can't resist the temptation. I'm human and I like to repeat a good laugh at the expense of the cultist nuts).

I was given several alleged quotes from Hitler and Goebbbels with wrong source indication or no indication at all, and I was easily able to locate them and debunk the silly interpretations that are peddled by "Holocaust" cultists:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-The-Official-Skeptic-Podcast,page3#166758
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2443,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Questions,BBC,page9#170250

I trust any reader familiar with the "Holocaust" literature will be equally able to locate the following (absolutely genuine) eyewitness accounts from the literature of the "Holocaust." I take the liberty of repeating them here because I find them such good clean fun (i.e. I believe they are lies, in case you don't get it). Readers who know their "Holocaust" catechism will recognise them easily, I assure you.

And I don't want to spoil your fun. If I gave you the sources and you did verify by yourself that this is indeed what the eyewitnesses are telling you, your eyes would fill with tears, your heart would be overwhelmed with sympathy, and all doubts would instantly vanish. This way you are, hopefully, being encouraged to be more alert and indeed to use the Internet on your quest for the truth.

Start today, folks. Pick your favorite "Holocaust" memoir and look it up again with your brain in active mode. It's called "revisionism": re (again, anew) vision = look again. You'll be suprised.

Shoes of victims piled 75 feet high. (About six stories)

Soviet submarine engine used to generate poisonous carbon monoxide to gas chambers.

Blaring Jazz music played from an array of loud speakers so nearby civilian Polish residents couldn't hear the gun fire as the SS executed thousands of Jews a day.

Prisoners working the gas chambers at Birkenau slept in the chambers during time off.

Cremated remains were scattered on the paths of Birkenau in the winter to keep people from slipping.

At one mass grave site, the ground "undulated in waves" from the gas of the decaying Jewish bodies.

Germans tried to erase traces of mass graves with dynamite.

At Auschwitz-Birkenau the Germans used "thousands of lamps" to illuminate the night time marches of victims to the gas chambers.

Victims in gas chambers all died covered with blue stains from the gas.

Victims in gas chambers died biting and/or tearing each others ears and noses off.

The families among the dead in the gas chambers could be identified because they were all holding hands.

The Germans made soap out of human fat.

The SS buried prisoners up to their necks and then trampled their heads with horses.

At times the Germans would clean up residual remains of bodies at the bottoms of cremation pits with flame throwers.

German military kept feet warm with socks made from Jewish hair.

The breasts of women were hacked off as they entered into the gas chambers.

Up to a 1,000 children a day at Auschwitz were thrown alive into the cremation ovens and burning pits. Possibly to save on gas.

The workers in the gas chambers casually smoked and ate while they were dragging the bodies out.

Children worked at the crematoriums and would stay warm inside gas chambers.

People were exterminated in chambers by steam.

The Germans "castrated" Jews with X-ray machines.

The Germans made sausage out of exterminated Jews and used it to feed the prisoners at Auschwitz.

A layer of wood just one foot thick under grates for mass cremations would throw up flames 30 feet and burn for hours.

The Germans made lamp shades out of human skin.

Decaying bodies at mass grave site exploded, blowing up columns of dirt.

Victims in gas chambers all died standing up due to dense packing.

The Germans killed homosexuals by tickling them to death.

Children at Auschwitz played games pretending they were crematorium workers putting people in the gas chambers and ovens.

At one extermination camp it was surrounded by a moat and mine field.

Human pyres were sustained burning by reintroducing human fat that drained off to a basin.

Some of the first mass gassings took place in the "red house" and the "white house".

The arms and legs of "dead" bodies in mass graves undergoing cremation would move around, "straining in slow motion".

Under piles of decaying bodies that couldn't be cremated right away there was a layer of worms.

Victims cremated remains were stuffed in the walls of barracks as insulation.

Victims in gas chambers were pink or some had green spots on them.

A little Jewish boy survived the gas chambers six (6) times.

After mass incineration of bodies in pits, nothing was left excepting a third of the pit was filled with ash covered with a layer of skulls on top.

Victims were marched to the gas chambers to the accompaniment of orchestra music.

Bodies of gassed victims burned in mass pits on their own without the need for anything else to keep the fires going.

Bodies were thrown into a deep pit where they would swell up and then a few days later "collapsed violently" making room for a new load.

Victims in gas chambers died in the sitting position in piles.

All the arms and legs of the gassed were cut off so they could get 4 bodies at once into ovens.

Piles of rotting bodies could be smelled for miles.

Prisoners at Auschwitz tried to keep track of how many children were exterminated by counting the number of baby carriages (prams) piled outside the gas chambers.

A human body could be cremated with less than one cubic foot of "brushwood and "branches".

The Germans produced shrunken heads from the victims.

The Germans modified an existing building to look like a train station complete with a fake tower and clock to welcome victims.

The commander at one camp would ride around on horse back trampling prisoners to death.

The Germans exterminated Jews by having them lay down in a pit and then threw in hand grenades.

The German exterminated people by putting them into a building and then blowing it up. Afterwards they had to retrieve body parts blown out over an area, some of which were hanging in trees.

The Germans killed 75,000 women and children by kicking them and smashing them against rocks.

People were mass exterminated to ashes by electrocution in chambers.

At one mass grave site, the bodies swelled up to such an extent above the surface they rolled out and down a hill.

The Germans had a huge underground facility where they exterminated people with high voltage electricity.

The SS held bicycle races in gas chambers.

The Germans made Jews jump from roofs with umbrellas.

One German SS made Jews carry him around the camp while he dropped burning paper on their heads.

Gas chambers were designed and painted with bright colors with flower boxes outside to disguise the real purpose.

Victims at one camp were exterminated with a time delay gas that allowed time for them to walk to the cremation ditches 30 meters or so away where they would fall dead.

The Germans exterminated Jews by throwing them alive into two flaming pits, one for children and one for adults.

The Germans extracted the teeth from exterminated victims and melted the gold down.

The Germans exterminated 18,000 Jews all in one day just 300 yards (meters) across an open field from a Polish village.

A vast spinning industry that surpassed all the production in Germany was set up at one extermination camp using unidentified materials from exterminated Jews.

At a mass grave, for months after, the ground trembled and geysers of blood pulsed out.

At times victims were taken on train rides in cars whose floors were covered in quicklime. "The train" with it's "quivering cargo of flesh seemed to throb, vibrate, rock and jump as if bewitched". "The train
began to move and sob, wail and howl".

Sixteen to seventeen barbers would go into a 12 X 12 foot chamber filled with 300 victims ready to be exterminated to cut off their hair.

At the same camp, they needed only one Ukrainian prisoner to pull out the teeth of the victims as they were being unloaded.

The Germans would cut up people alive and throw their muscle tissue into buckets and the tissues "were still working and contracting, making the bucket jump about".

Flocks of gaggling geese were kept around to cover up the screams of victims.

SS people would review victims about to go into gas chambers in order to select them for a meat source to be recovered after the people had been
gassed.

The Germans would stage mock marriages of prisoners and then kill the bride and groom after it was over.

At virtually every single camp identified as an "extermination center" the Germans first buried hundreds of thousands at each one and then dug them up later to be burned.

The Germans executed 80,000 Jews by gun fire over a two day period at one camp. That would be 40,000 each day.

The Germans would stuff live crematorium workers into the ovens.

For the most part, most of the places identified as "extermination centers" were set up right in and among the immediate vicinity of sizable civilian populations.

Polish civilians frequented the immediate vicinity of the cremation building located just outside of one camp.

The Germans used the hair from victims to stuff mattresses.

People could tell by the colors of the flames coming out of the crematorium chimneys what countries the Jews were from.

At one camp the commandant would randomly shoot prisoners with a sniper rifle from the veranda of his house.

The Germans threw Jews in a cage with a bear and an eagle and the bear would eat their flesh and the eagle would pick their bones.

Other Comments by ASMarques

140. Comment #172358 by al-rawandi on April 29, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Also those things cited, "submarine engines" and what not. Those are where I am supposed to trust you...


So, do you consider yourself an anti-semite? Do you have particular disdain for Jews?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

141. Comment #172483 by ASMarques on April 29, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Said al-rawandi:

Also those things cited, "submarine engines" and what not. Those are where I am supposed to trust you...

You mean the "Holocaust" is begining to look like a bad joke to you?

Sure. Same with me. Concerning "submarine engines" see for instance:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Treblinka.html

"According to Martin Gilbert in his book, Holocaust Journey, the gas chambers at Treblinka utilized carbon monoxide from diesel engines. Many writers say that these diesel engines were obtained from captured Russian submarines, but according to the Nizkor Project, they were large 500 BHP engines from captured Soviet T-34 tanks. At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi war criminals, the American government charged that the Jews were murdered at Treblinka in "steam chambers," not gas chambers."

And, of course, in his Jerusalem show-trial, Eichmann confessed to practically everything "many writers had been saying" (and more):
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/eichmann-004.html

"Höfle told the police captain to explain the installation to me. And then he started in. He had a, well, let's say, a vulgar, uncultivated voice. Maybe he drank. He spoke some dialect from the southwestern corner of Germany, and he told me how he had made everything airtight. It seems they were going to hook up a Russian submarine engine and pipe the exhaust into the houses and the Jews inside would be poisoned."

The hilarious thing about the submarine and T-34 motors is they were both Diesels. Anyone with some knowledge of motor engineering will understand that mass murder by Diesel motor is quite an impractical idea. Death would come only very slowly and by asphyxiation, since the Diesel fumes are minimally toxic. The original claims attributed to Kurt "God's Witness" Gerstein by his interrogators (he conveniently committed suicide [1] after writing his "voluntary deposition" also known as "The Gerstein Report" in a prison in Paris in July 1945) concerned T-34 tank motors, not submarine motors. Then the revisionist critics started pointing out that tank engines were quite impractical, and lo! about the time of Eichmann's show-trial, the tanks were turning into submarines. Then someone noticed that submarines were at least as impractical as tanks and the "Holocaust scholars" went back to their old T-34s...

*yawn*

Concerning Kurt "God's Witness" Gerstein:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/Gerstein/index.html

Concerning Treblinka:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p133_Allen.html

Concerning mass murder by Diesel exhaust:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p-15_Berg.html

"The most frequent claim seems to have been that the engines were Diesels from Soviet tanks (most Soviet tanks during the war were Diesel-driven, including the famous T-34), but it has recently been claimed that at least one of the engines was from a Soviet submarine. Any submarine engine would certainly have been a Diesel also. Is In lieu of better information, one has to investigate the broader and more difficult question of whether or not any Diesel ever built could possibly have done the abominable deed.

"If Gerstein had claimed that the carbon monoxide was generated by gasoline engines, his story might be more credible. Gasoline engines can, indeed, kill rather easily and with little or no warning because their exhaust is almost odorless. Although Diesel engines look very much like gasoline engines, at least to most people, they are actually quite different. Any mining engineer or mine surveyor should certainly have been able to easily distinguish between the two types of engines. For one thing, the sound of Diesels is so distinct that almost anyone can with a little experience recognize them with his eyes closed.

"Another peculiarity of Diesels is that when in operation they usually give warning of their presence-their exhaust generally smells terrible. The intensity of the smell or stench has, no doubt, given rise to the thoroughly false impression that Diesel exhaust must therefore be very harmful.

"Although Diesel exhaust is not totally harmless it is, in fact, one of the least harmful pollutants anywhere except for some possible long term, carcinogenic effects which are totally irrelevant for the operation of a gas chamber to commit mass-murder. Diesel emission levels have always been within the current air emission standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency without requiring any modifications or accessories. Diesels have always produced less than 1% carbon monoxide which is the current standard for internal combustion engines. Gasoline engines have only met the same standard after many years of research and after the addition of many complex accessories and engine modifications. The Diesels of the 1930s and 1940s were as clean-burning as, if not more clean than, Diesels of today."
____________________________

[1] Hey, maybe he was a Muslim horny for the 70 virgins, as Sam Harris probably would have it. I know old Sam has some crazy opinions about Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem he knows next to nothing about, but still accuses of having been a direct promoter of the "Holocaust," going so far as to affirm he was given a guided tour of Auschwitz by Himmler himself. His source? Ah, well, Alan Dershowitz's "Case for Israel," of course (see a devastating criticism of Dershowitz's disgrace of a book in "Beyond Chutzpah" by Norman Finkelstein)...

So, do you consider yourself an anti-semite?

Of course not. Why would I be one?

Do you have particular disdain for Jews?

I have a certain disdain for sheep incapable of thinking outside the flock -- Jewish or otherwise -- and I like independent-minded individuals, Jews or otherwise.

Other Comments by ASMarques

142. Comment #172607 by bitofinger on April 29, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Al-rawandi,

Thanks for the heads-up.

I checked out some of the sites and people that ASMarques bandies about like bad gossip as if they were actually part of main-stream ideas, and you were absolutely right. Turns out one of the people, Alain Soral, is not only anti-semitic, but appears to be anti-homosexual and anti-woman as well. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Soral

Note in particular the passage in which it appears bad behavior was on both sides of the aisle. "The association Act Up rounded on his publisher, the éditions Blanche, whom they claimed, through books like those of Alain Soral or Éric Rémès spread negative prejudices towards homosexuals and even, hate. They asked the director of publication to stop publishing these two authors and they vandalized the bureaux of the publisher. The head of the editions Blanche claimed the members of Act Up physically assaulted his executive assistant and threatened to press charges. Act Up denied such accusations. And be it as it may, no legal action have been intended."

But of course this will be dismissed as another Jewish attempt to hijack reality. Then see for yourself at
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.alainsoral.com/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search?q=alain soral&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS251US251

One of the sites referenced by Marques makes radical and inflammatory statements such as "May 6, 2007, France enslaved to the Israeli-American Empire" regarding the date Sarkozy was elected. This site in particular was full of alarmist propaganda such as a picture of Sarkozy with American and Israeli flags behind him and the words "The Axis of Hate" emblazoned across the bottom of the photo. As you can imagine, the pages were in no way lacking exclamation points.

I'm not saying it is impossible the Holocaust was a tremendous hoax. I'm saying the possibilities of it being a hoax are akin to a giant tea pot floating out in space somewhere between Mars and Jupiter. Yet I cannot disprove it. I have not, much to my discredit, circled the aforementioned area in my spaceship, tracing all possible orbits for said tea pot, therefore I cannot ethically with 100% certainty deny its existence. I have only listened to opinions of main-stream, reasonable scientists and formed opinions based on my estimations of probability.

And being that I have not, most likely to the disquietude of ASMarques, time-traveled back to Nazi Germany during WWII to see for myself that there were no gas chambers, no

"plan, no written orders at any level, no assigned method of mass murder or bureaucratic control, leaving it to the imagination of a whole bunch of telepathic improvisers who then came up with mass execution by steam, electrocution, non-toxic Diesel exhaust, Zyklon B insecticide, lime train car, pedal-driven brain-bashing machine (all attested to in the Nuremberg trials), and no remaining vestiges in any of the precisely located alleged murder sites"

that I myself cannot, in a reasonable argument, prove the Holocaust is a fact of history. Silly me for sounding like a "red-neck creationist". Way off the mark here, Marques, considering I'm from New York and an Atheist near approaching the 7th order on Richard Dawkins' belief scale of 1-7, seven being utterly convinced there is absolutely no god. Boy did "it" get that one wrong. (re: my comment #172221 on April 29, 2008 at 11:02 am)

I also find it comical that you incessantly moan and complain about how boring we peasants are. This is in stark contrast with how much time and energy you spend debating us. How boring then is your life? Or do you claim to be on a mission to save humanity from the Jewish-American-Sarkozy-Christian-Gay-Feminist agenda? Your grasp of psychology is somewhat unimpressive.

And I must take issue with at least (for now) one more prong in your argument: your attempt to show an apparently unreasonable premise in Germany's actions:

...the vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate an entire race in the hope future historians would be at a loss to determine what had happened to them,

This statement in no way approaches reality. Germany, at least in the later war years, had no reason to strive for and no intention of keeping such heinous crimes a secret. Their philosophical, political and religious ambitions were nothing short of world domination. What use had they for concealing atrocities, especially those which many believed were socially beneficial and a necessary evil? And to have to explain themselves to people they considered inferior? Absurd. It does seem that you have at least some traits of which the Nazis would be proud.

If I am so wrong, why don't you come out publicly and deny it? Speak the words. Make the same statements I now make and that most every decent human would affirm:

1) I believe in the rights and dignity of all human beings, regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, language, disability, country of birth, culture or religion.
2) I believe all humans have a responsibility to work toward the progress of society as a whole.
3) I believe in the ethical and responsible stewardship of the environment.
4) I believe all humans should regard the whole of nature as equal and deserving, subject to checks and balances.
5) I believe humans should exercise great liberty in the pursuit of happiness.

If you do, and if you are a closet Nazi, you will not be able to hold your head up in circles where you gather with your cohorts, unless you are a bold-faced liar. I could be wrong about your prejudices and authoritarian leanings, but I don't think I am.

Other Comments by bitofinger

143. Comment #172681 by ASMarques on April 29, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Said bitofinger:

It does seem that you have at least some traits of which the Nazis would be proud.

Here we go again. Always derive and start talking about something else, preferably the secret intentions or faulty character or naughty politics of your opposer. Anything but his arguments.

Let me put a concrete question to you: the holes in the ceiling of the Krema II morgue in Birkenau -- the alleged gas chamber and epicenter of the "Holocaust" where at least hundreds of thousands are supposed to have been gassed non-stop -- are not there, and no refilling in their alleged locations can be detected. Even "Holocaust scholar" Robert Van Pelt (in the Irving vs Lipstadt trial) admitted this:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/holes/PeltReportExtract.html

"Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would have remained would have been the four narrow holes and the slab. While there is no certainty in this particular matter, it would have been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete in the hole and thus restore the slab."

In other words: according to Van Pelt, the alleged Birkenau Krema II holes may have been refilled like the ones drilled after the war in the ceiling of the Auschwitz I alleged gas chamber are now -- after revisionists discovered and publicized the original blueprints -- mumbled by the Museum authorities to have been, but careful close inspection -- not to speak of modern science -- is not deemed capable of finding these odd refilled holes in the concrete slab, even when their precise location is well known!

My question is: since the holes are not there and no refilling can be detected, what do you make of the eyewitness stories about the alleged gassings that require the holes in the ceiling for the introduction of the Zyklon B? Are they true or are they false?

Other Comments by ASMarques

144. Comment #172694 by Brian English on April 29, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Here's someone who seems to agree with ASMarques
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=59657&ATypeId=1

Other Comments by Brian English

145. Comment #173836 by ASMarques on May 1, 2008 at 9:29 am

Said bitofinger:

I checked out some of the sites and people that ASMarques bandies about like bad gossip as if they were actually part of main-stream ideas,

You're wrong, bitofinger. The obsession with "mainstream ideas" is yours, not mine. I for one couldn't care less about mainstream ideas that are in fact bald-faced lies (or at least falsehoods).

As I said below (#172681), my question concerning the Birkenau Krema II morgue (the epicenter of the "Holocaust" where at least hundreds of thousands are alleged to have been gassed) is: since the holes are not there and no refilling can be detected, what do you make of the eyewitness stories about the alleged gassings that require the holes in the ceiling for the introduction of the Zyklon B? Are they true or are they false?

Alas, no reply forthcoming from the excited posters burning to know whether I hate gays (?) or women (?), or whether I believe "in the ethical and responsible stewardship of the environment" (?) and hold "the whole of nature as equal and deserving, subject to checks and balances" (?)...

Well, here is another question, concerning the saintly Elie Wiesel, the well-known eyewitness, Chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, holder of the Congressional Medal of Freedom, winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize for Peace and respected advisor to US presidents on "holocaustic matters" (citation from the diabolical Prof. Faurisson quoting from "Night," Elie's bestselling memoir of Auschwitz):

[Quoted from:
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml
(see the notes and references there)]

The gassing lie was spread by the Americans. [3] The lie that Jews were killed by boiling water or steam (specifically at Treblinka) was spread by the Poles. [4] The electrocution lie was spread by the Soviets. [5]

The fire lie is of undetermined origin. It is in a sense as old as war propaganda or hate propaganda. In his memoir, Night, which is a version of his earlier Yiddish testimony, Wiesel reports that at Auschwitz there was one flaming ditch for the adults and another one for babies. He writes: [6]

"Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it -- saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes.)"

A little farther on there was another ditch with gigantic flames where the victims suffered "slow agony in the flames." Wiesel's column was led by the Germans to within "three steps" of the ditch, then to "two steps." "Two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a barracks."

[...]

That Wiesel personally survived, was, of course, the result of a miracle. He says that: [8]

"In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?"

Now please note what Germar Rudolf -- currently "discredited," as the "Holocaust" parrots would no doubt put it, since he has been convicted of thought-crime by a court and is now purging a jail sentence -- has to say about the ground water table in Birkenau:
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/5.html#5.4.4.2.

Makes it even more convenient to burn bodies in pits, doesn't it? And never mind the water or the need for oxigenating the lower layers in order to keep the combustion going...

And my question to the clueless "Holocaust" believers who obsessively parrot the "HATE" red herring is: can you detect a hateful liar here? Who is he in your opinion? Faurisson, the reviled revisionist skeptic censored and threatened with jail, or Wiesel, the respected Nobel prize winner lionised and showered with honours all over the Western World?

Talking about hateful liars, how about this quote:

"Every German, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the Jew personifies and for what persists in the Jew. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead."

Hateful stuff? Right. But, of course, it's a false quote. The true one comes from Elie Wiesel the Talmudic Jew himself: just substitute Jew for German and German for Jew.

Other Comments by ASMarques

146. Comment #174164 by bitofinger on May 1, 2008 at 7:39 pm

ASMarques,

Your spinning has gotten out of control.

...the alleged gas chamber and epicenter of the "Holocaust" where at least hundreds of thousands are supposed to have been gassed non-stop -- are not there...

Followed by what you perceive as confirmation, a supposed admission, from a "Holocaust Scholar", Robert Van Pelt.

"Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would have remained would have been the four narrow holes and the slab. While there is no certainty in this particular matter, it would have been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete in the hole and thus restore the slab."

In no way does Van Pelt's statement support your argument. He simply uses language such as "which implies" and "what would have remained" and "no certainty in this matter." This is not even close to your purported admission. Thank you for posting this and aiding my argument.

...since the holes are not there and no refilling can be detected, what do you make of the eyewitness stories about the alleged gassings that require the holes in the ceiling for the introduction of the Zyklon B? Are they true or are they false?

No amount of triviality in the details of the death chambers will be able to distort the facts in your direction. The ilk of psychotic cultists who killed so many people will always twist and exaggerate and spin every possible angle to turn the table around.

Now, to flip the table right-side up (no pun intended) and ask a more general question, what do you make of the copious images of starving prisoners in the camps? Men women and children, bare-boned as skeletons. Do you suppose the pictures were falsified somehow? Perhaps these were not Jews, but Germans taken POW, or maybe Russians under Stalin's despotism? Or maybe you suppose these people were malnourished and some died of starvation, but not murdered outright. Immediately after the photographs and video were taken, they were fed and kept alive. Or maybe the Jews - masters in the art of deception, able to, in 2008, successfully fool 6.806 billion people (pardon me, 6,805,900,000 people, an arbitrary supposition of the number of people on your side) and the vast majority of people who have lived since the events in question - did this to themselves to achieve martyrdom? All of this makes perfect sense to any abnormal person.

That you are exceedingly intelligent and well-versed on the subject is one matter, that you might be a paranoid schizophrenic, another. That is to say, naturally, I would not debate His Holiness, the Pope, toe-to-toe on the details of his Christian faith. I would lose hands-down. The man is an ardent supporter of his hallucination, and has studied his entire life, is well-read and can argue every well-rehearsed angle, much like you. My sincere admiration to you on doing your homework.

Me, I'm just a common peasant. I would never debate minor details with His Worship, someone like the Pope, but I would certainly tell him how absurd, parasitic and detrimental to civilization his cult has become.

But, I digress.

...burning to know whether I hate gays (?) or women (?), or whether I believe "in the ethical and responsible stewardship of the environment" (?) and hold "the whole of nature as equal and deserving, subject to checks and balances" (?)...

Well, as you align yourself with one of your champions, Alain Soral...

Here are the first words of an interesting new text by French intellectual Alain Soral -- yes, there are still a few survivors in Voltaire's country.

...apparently a Jew-Gay-Woman-hating raving despot...

"When with a Frenchman, a Zionist Jew, you start to say that maybe there are problems that come from you. Maybe you might have made a few mistakes. It's not systematically the other person's fault, totally, if no one can stand you everywhere you go. Because that's their general history, you see. For 2500 years, every time they've settled somewhere, within fifty years they get themselves beat up." (Broadcasted on the French television channel France 2 on September 20, 2004)

And from Wikipedia...

"Homosexuals have nothing to do with the Gay Pride ideology. An ideology which involves, to [Soral], promotion of the 'Gorgeous Guy' model, youth, parties, drag queens in order to obscure the reality of homosexuality, of aged or working-class homosexuals."

Alain Soral distinguish two sorts of feminism, those of the "flippées" (freaked-out) à la Simone de Beauvoir and those of the "pétasses" (sluts) à la Elisabeth Badinter."

Who will you trot out next to promote your fantasies? And to ally Soral, a closet Nazi, with Voltaire, a civil libertarian? Wow, I never saw that one coming.

Now I readily admit my knowledge of Soral is very limited. It was difficult to find much on the web about him in English. Maybe I am wrong.

Alas, no reply forthcoming from the excited posters...

I am sorry for taking more than the alloted 48 hours to respond. Please, let's discuss the rules next time before their enforcement. Many thanks.

The obsession with "main-stream ideas" is yours, not mine. I for one couldn't care less about main-stream ideas...

Well, maybe you should. Not to say that baying as a sheep and following some blind Sheppard is a good thing, but registering a few non-xenophobes, impartial scholars, or even - dear holy father of ours in heaven and earth forbid - a few Jews on your side might give you more credit. I suppose I must give the standard disclaimer that my last comment was purely in ridicule of the addlepated religioso, lest you find another broken prong in my argument. Oh dear, I'll have to clip that fingernail.

More incriminating than evidence of the heinous crimes itself, which as we know is subject to manipulation and interpretation on both sides, are the not-so-subtle underpinnings of the case. We know most Germans hated or grew to hate Jews, Poles and gypsies, and blamed them for many of Germany's social, political and financial ills. We know Germany was thirsting to return glory and respect to the motherland after the humiliating defeat of WWI. We know Hitler was a psychotic cult of personality bent on world domination, whose inflammatory ramblings were well-received in a once-proud country thrown into despair by the Treaty of Versailles. We know Hitler bred an army of fanatic loyalists subject to complete control by the upper echelon. We know the media machine pumped out a constant vitriol of anti-alien, pro-German propaganda. We know the final solution was at first a plan to simply deport the shunned elements of society, but later, as Germany became more bold, after having been given ground (both figuratively and literally), it turned into the ghastly argument before us now. The apparatus was there. The will was there. The motive was there. The hatred was there. The evidence you dispute, but the truth is painfully obvious.

And more spin...

"Every German, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the Jew personifies and for what persists in the Jew. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead."

Hateful stuff? Right. But, of course, it's a false quote. The true one comes from Elie Wiesel the Talmudic Jew himself: just substitute Jew for German and German for Jew.

Minor detail omission: was it said before the Nazis began their campaign of eradication or after the genocide was over? Case in point. With all of your knowledge on the subject, it would be easy for you to manipulate a few seemingly insignificant facts to persuasively validate your version of events. And most of the sheep would never know.

Feel free to respond. I will most likely end the discussion here as it appears the old saying is true: you can lead a stone to water and beat it, but you can't get blood from a dead horse. Thanks for engaging and for the interesting conversation.

Other Comments by bitofinger

147. Comment #174561 by ASMarques on May 2, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Says bitofinger:

Your spinning has gotten out of control.

...the alleged gas chamber and epicenter of the "Holocaust" where at least hundreds of thousands are supposed to have been gassed non-stop -- are not there...

The holes you left out, bitofinger, not the alleged gas chamber itself. The holes in the roof are what is not there, at the alleged "Holocaust" epicenter, to use Van Pelt's own word for the Birkenau morgue alleged to have functioned as a mass murdering gas chamber.

Also missing is the cyanide that should have reacted chemically with the iron rich walls producing extremely durable compounds, as indeed happened in the other gas chambers, the ones everybody agrees were only used for the disinfestation of clothes, mattresses etc., where cyanide compounds (like ferric ferrocyanide or "Prussian blue") make their presence visible even to the naked eye.

By the way, you may like to know the urgent need to reduce the risks of typhus epidemics caused by lice was such that the Germans even had delousing facilities in Auschwitz that worked on much the same principles modern familiar microwave appliances use:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p-4_Weber.html

Followed by what you perceive as confirmation, a supposed admission, from a "Holocaust Scholar", Robert Van Pelt.

"Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would have remained would have been the four narrow holes and the slab. While there is no certainty in this particular matter, it would have been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete in the hole and thus restore the slab."

In no way does Van Pelt's statement support your argument. He simply uses language such as "which implies" and "what would have remained" and "no certainty in this matter." This is not even close to your purported admission. Thank you for posting this and aiding my argument.

You're welcome, bitofinger, but, alas, I don't think you got my point.

I didn't mean Van Pelt was conceding the non-existence of the holes as an ordinary fact devoid of contorted metaphysical implications of a religious nature, i.e. as a straight fact that indeed did prove in a very, very simple way that the gassing tales were false.

Of course he would never have done that! That's not the way the religious believing mind operates, and definitely not what the sponsors of Deborah Lipstadt, the "Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies" taken to court by David Irving, were paying him £109,000 to say.

What Van Pelt did do, as a true peddler of the "Holocaust" religion, was:

1) To admit that he had gone to Birkenau to see the holes in the alleged gas chamber's roof for himself and not having found them, he had concluded they must have been filled up by the wicked Germans (before their own blowing-up of the "gas chamber" that fractured but didn't destroy the massive reinforced concrete slab that formed the roof), in some extremely clever way that can no longer be observed, even though the precise locations of the holes are claimed to be known.

2) To allege that this material absence of the holes essential to the "Zyklon B through the roof" tale was not a simple matter of crucial sine qua non evidence that would establish the truth or falsehood of the eyewitness allegations and ought to be investigated by forensic science as normal criminal matters are, but instead that the sacred holes themselves should be promoted to the higher semi-metaphysical heights of "moral certainty" as defined by Bishop John Wilkins in his "Of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion" (1660).

No, I kid you not.

But, of course, the good Bishop -- also known for his fictional trip to the moon -- was not such a trivial religious thinker as Van Pelt seems to have made him. Wilkins's concept of "moral certainty" meant his certainty having for object, in his own words, "such beings as are less simple, and do more depend upon mixed circumstances" than the ordinary verifiable ones, such as a simple "holes or no holes" matter that would be quite decisive to settle a criminal investigation. What he was driving at was in an altogether different plane: he meant his certainty that a philosophical god existed through the observation of his works and "natural laws," not a method for close investigation of much lesser beings -- such as a few holes in a roof -- in an everyday court of law...

Some terminology for a supposed technical witness debating technical problems in order to establish historical facts in a 20th century court!

No one would ever dream of such an idiotic approach to any alleged historical events other than the "Holocaust" sham. Just imagine a technical witness getting such a fat fee as Van Pelt did, and coming up with something like "I have this moral certainty that Napoleon won (or lost) at Waterloo." Now that wouldn't sound very technical, would it?...

Here are a few excerpts from Van Pelt's own Report for the trial. You'll notice the "majority" approach to the truth -- i.e. postulating the "rest of mankind," presumably well known for its massively added up IQ, against the stupid revisionists -- so dear to advocates of religion (when in power, naturally):

From Van Pelt's own Report:

It will be shown that, in the words of John Wilkins, we may assert as "moral certainty" the statement that Auschwitz was an extermination camp where the Germans killed around one million people with the help of gas chambers, and where they incinerated their remains in crematoria ovens.
_________________

These latter people [negationists in good faith] who sincerely believe, in the words of one of the founding [sic] the Royal Society John Wilkins, that "the rest of Mankind might have combined together to impose upon them by these relations," will not be able to be convinced by anything. Yet, in turn, I hope that those who maintain an unwarranted skepticism will not be able to convince those who are prepared to consider, with common reason and without prejudice, the evidence. And perhaps they will agree with Wilkins that "those who will pretend such kind of grounds for their disbelief of any thing, will never be able to perswade others, that the true cause why they do not give their Assent is because they have no reason for it, but because they have no mind to it." John Wilkins, Of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion (London: A. Maxwell, 1675), 26.
_________________

Wilkins's typology of the various levels of certainty provides a useful compass when one undertakes a journey through a landscape of awful historical facts and offensive lies. For Wilkins neither Physical Certainty, based on the direct experience of the senses, nor Mathematical Certainty, obtained through proof, were epistemologically problematical. But in the realm of Moral Certainty the question of evidence