1. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #413678 by ASMarques on September 9, 2009 at 10:12 pm

Tezcatlipoca: "who would have thought that drowning in evidence would work?"

I must agree. I found Goldy's evidence that people from all political quarters have names compelling.

I guess your drowning speaks volumes. In fact much better than I could ever hope to.

2. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #413530 by ASMarques on September 9, 2009 at 3:42 am

Goldy: "Don't you ever think using these sites to prove something is akin to using Genesis to prove Creationism?"

Yes, Goldy, I know this will sound absolutely extraordinary to you, but "Holocaust" debunkers often cite "Holocaust" debunking facts and sources.

It's a bit like evolutionists citing evolutionist facts and sources to make evolutionist points, rather than trying to do that by resorting exclusively to the creationist mythologists.

It's a strange world, isn't it?

3. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #413524 by ASMarques on September 9, 2009 at 3:17 am

Goldy: "You use a Nazi front for your information"

You would be surprised to see how ecletic revisionist research on the "Holocaust" myth actually is, but of course you would need to look it up by yourself. I can only give you my advice: mistrust the political and religious clichés, trust your own rational judgement.

See you Goldy. Go play in the forum.

4. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #413518 by ASMarques on September 9, 2009 at 2:56 am

Caudimordax: "I don't care how much you try to gussie it up with you pseudo-intellectual fake academic crap."

Sounds like the typical creationist's last line of defense against the cruel truth...

5. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #413515 by ASMarques on September 9, 2009 at 2:47 am

Laurie Fraser said: "If I might suggest, one way to prevent confirmation bias is to research from a wide variety of sources."

Absolutely. May I furthermore suggest that you should be on the look for the opposing -- not simply the confirming -- views, specially if the confirmation is imposed by the law and censorship is exercised on any opposing sources over much of the world?

If you don't get the idea, let me put it this way: if you are looking forward to exercise your own judgment on, say, the historical existence of Jesus Christ (apparently another Dawkins fetish BTW), it's the few, powerless and little-known rationalist critics that you should make a special effort to listen to, not the official Vatican channel or the loudmouth American preachers that you already know by heart.

Hope that helps.

6. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #413510 by ASMarques on September 9, 2009 at 2:13 am

Goldy: "Can't see the relevance here..."

The relevance is obvious: having the scientific concept of Evolution compared to a vulgar historical myth that needs to be protected from close examination by censorship and repressive laws is indeed embarrassing.

And this, not the forum, is where the provocative comparison is being made.

7. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #413505 by ASMarques on September 9, 2009 at 1:55 am

Laurie Fraser: "So, are you suggesting that there never was a campaign by the Nazis to exterminate Jews, or just that the numbers are all wrong?

Both. Here are some references:

1) DATA OF JEWISH ORIGIN:

Whenever it's possible to peek into the Kadosh Hakadashim without having to pass by the censoring high and not-so-high priests, since no other real data exists:

http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/revu/TI97/TI971122.html
[Scroll further down after the Israeli estimate to the commentaries by Faurisson and Nordling.]

2) DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS:

Here are the very few book studies you'll be able to find:

-- The only meticulous book-length study from the viewpoint of population statistics ever done is The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry by Walter Sanning (1983). Sanning uses Jewish originated data and estimates at 3.500.000 the total number of Jews in the German sphere of influence for the duration of the War, and at 2.400.000 the number of Jews alive at the end of the War in the countries previously occupied by Germany (with the exclusion of the USSR). His conclusions are confirmed by Carl Nordling -- a Finnish demographer, applying statistical inference to samples of known individual histories -- who places the total of Jewish victims of the concentration camps at between 300.000 and 600.000 (see articles by Nordling below).

-- For your reference, an anthology titled Dimension des Völkermords was edited in 1991 for the Institut für Zeitgeschichte by Wolfgang Benz, obviously as an attempt to fill the obvious vacuum. It's a weak pot-pourri of recycled extermination allegations with no connecting rationale other than the 6 million necessary figure (even though Benz denies this).

-- You'll find an interesting comparison of those two books by Germar Rudolf, who doesn't exactly follow either of them, here (Rudolf was deported from the United States where he had taken refuge, and jailed in Germany for crimethought):

http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndstats.html

-- I also found Richard Korherr and his Reports by Stephen Challen (1993) quite convincing. It's a translation of, and commentary on, the secret reports sent by Richard Korherr (who had the post of "Inspector of Statistics for the Reichsfuehrer-SS") to Himmler on the Jewish deportations. Challen reaches the following figures: 1.200.000 Jews dead for the whole of Europe during the War, 450.000 of them in parts of European Russia not occupied by the Germans, and 750.000 in the area of German direct or indirect responsibility. According to him, out of 2.300.000 deported Jews, 360.000 died, and a total of 200.000 of those died in the concentration camps. He considers the Jewish losses "heavy", but in proportion to the German or Soviet ones, and no more than about 20 % of what is usually believed.

A few more references that you may find useful:

'The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry': An Exchange
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p367_Rubenstein.html

Critique of John S. Conway's Review of Walter Sanning's Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, From The International History Review, August, 1985
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p375_Desjardins.html

John S. Conway's review previously criticised (quoted)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p379_Conway.html

How Many Jews Were Eliminated by the Nazis?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p-61_Hankins.html

3) STATISTICAL INFERENCE BASED ON RELEVANT SAMPLES:

The Jewish Establishment under Nazi-Threat and Domination 1938-1945
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p195_Nordling.html

How Many Jews Died in the German Concentration Camps?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p335_Nordling.html

8. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #413484 by ASMarques on September 9, 2009 at 12:35 am

Goldy: "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink"

Exactly the modus faciendi of the biggest genociders of all time, according to our most vocal court historians: mass murder organized by "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" from the top deciders all the way down to the humblest improvising hands-on executioners...

Plenty of documented naughty orders from Stalin and his merry band in the Russian archives, but nothing in the wide-open German ones in the hands of the Allies at the end of the war. Now that's what I call "mind reading" (as old Hilberg himself actually did)...

9. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #413475 by ASMarques on September 8, 2009 at 11:50 pm

Said bendigeidfran: "Death by non-toxic diesel exhaust must have taken ages. Anyway we've all mass-killed a few jews so you're right it doesn't really matter."

Those German improvisers were terrible at mass murder. They couldn't conceive of any practical means, you know, like the NKVD professionals at Katyn did...

Seriously speaking, what really amazes me is the insistence in equating the obviously true, and truly scientific, paradigm of Evolution with such a politically overcharged exploitative concept as the alleged "Holocaust". Boggles the mind.

Even worse, people like Dawkins who campaign for the avoidance of open debate in order to preserve a falsification of history should be reminded that the controversy they wish to avoid is already being punished all over Europe by severe fines and jail sentences, with innocent people languishing in prison for thoughtcrime.

Shame on you, prof. Dawkins.

10. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #413463 by ASMarques on September 8, 2009 at 10:56 pm

Says prof. Dawkins: "Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to 'teach the controversy', and to give 'equal time' to the 'alternative theory' that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators."

An inept comparison. What sense does it make to affirm that a buzzword standing for a free-form undefined concept "happened"?

Look at it this way if you think something called "the Holocaust" really happened: we can always construe complex sets of events into single historical facts and maintain a valid discourse if a clear definition of our meaning exists. Historical narrative would be a desert of intractable minutiae if we didn't do just that. Thus, the Second World War may be called a fact, much like the fact that I entered this comment on Dawkins's self-styled "clear thinking oasis" or any other simple empirical truth. This is because, in spite of the great complexity of the historical events, we establish definitions and understand them: a "war" is a state of belligerence between states, a "world war" is a war of global world significance, and "the Second World War" is the particular world war that took place between 1939 and 1945.

Similarly, if we are to take the "Holocaust" as an historical fact, rather than a vague set of religious beliefs, we should define our meaning. For instance, a biblical holocaust is simply a sacrifice consumed by fire, and "ill-will towards the Jews," "persecution of the Jews," "the shooting of one's Jewish grandfather in Russia" or "some mass killings of Jews" are not "the Holocaust," the one historians are talking about when they capitalize the noun. I presume Dawkins will agree that it is impossible to debate the supposedly historical "Holocaust" if -- alone among alleged historical facts -- it is allowed to remain an open concept devoid of meaning and form.

The "Holocaust" is assumed to be a relatively precise set of events involving an attempted extermination of the Jews, resulting in approximately 6 million of them being murdered, mainly in the German supposedly homicidal gas chambers. I believe anyone who has been around for the last half century, living anywhere but in the deepest Amazonian jungle, is familiar with this.

In this sense then, we are perfectly entitled to claim the "Holocaust" is a fiction, since all the above claims are almost certainly false: no extermination (real or attempted), no 6 million (not even approximately), and no homicidal gas chambers (not even in the supposed "extermination camp" of Auschwitz where by far the largest part of the alleged gassings is supposed to have taken place). To understand this, however, it is not enough to sit comfortably on your "acquired knowledge." You'll need to actively, and perhaps painfully, search for yourself.

Of course, if we choose to define the "Holocaust" in a different manner, say as a proto-religious teaching based on extreme but vague war propaganda, claiming that undefined, formless but terrible, events, many of them miraculous, happened to Jews in such a manner that they are now held to be collectively entitled to financial compensation, as well as the Jewish state of Israel exempted from the basic standards of civilized behavior, then the "Holocaust" sacred cloud may indeed be considered "a fact" -- though hardly an appropriate subject for any historical debate.

Alas, I don't think prof. Dawkins meant it that way. I think he really meant his favorite unexamined superstitious conspiracy theory, namely the vast German plot to secretly exterminate an entire race in the hope future historians would be at a loss to determine what had happened to it, allegedly resulting in the necessary 6 million murdered Jews, with no procedural 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 came up with mass execution by such methods as steam, electrocution, non-toxic Diesel exhaust and Zyklon B pesticide. And, of course, not leaving the slightest vestige of such a carnage accessible to forensic examination in any of its precisely located alleged sites, since in the last months of the war a small band was marched all around Europe to exhume the victims and destroy the evidence on makeshift pyres, with explosive devices, and even through the use of bone-crushing machines...

Some rationalist indeed.

11. RDF TV - The Baloney Detection Kit

Comment #391765 by ASMarques on June 28, 2009 at 6:14 am

Interesting. Has anyone else noticed that Shermer seems to be avoiding his pet cause lately? I mean, I remember this...

http://is.gd/po0o
http://is.gd/po0C
http://is.gd/po0U
http://is.gd/po13
http://is.gd/po17

... and I wonder why...

http://is.gd/oRGw

Could it be that he has finally started to use the Baloney Detection Kit as those Danish guys who promoted the Andersson-Faurisson debate did? Try it yourselves, folks...
:)

12. What is science for?

Comment #377178 by ASMarques on May 15, 2009 at 2:36 am

Peacebeuponme, I've long left because I don't post to "alternate threads."

However, this is not really a new post, but a needed short correction to an old one, now in the alternate thread to the "What is science for?" thread that I can no longer edit, for the benefit of anyone that might be reading it.

Not very complicated, is it? I'm pretty sure it won't ruin your, or anyone's weekend, peace be upon your happy souls.

So, Mr. Moderator, please be so kind as to place these in the same alternate thread. Thanks.

13. What is science for?

Comment #377172 by ASMarques on May 15, 2009 at 2:20 am

CORRECTION to message #184675:

Where it says:

«(in Pressac, "Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz -- la Machinerie du meurtre de masse," CNRS, Paris 1993, p. 554)»

... please read:

«(in Pressac, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers," The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989, p 554)».

14. What is science for?

Comment #185433 by ASMarques on May 27, 2008 at 7:25 pm

I'm sorry, dear Admin. entities, but I feel this farewell message in response to groundless accusations and false quotes attributed to me is important, so please leave it on the main thread. It's not asking too much, is it? Thank you.

Said newskin:

That's because you derail pretty much every thread that has the faintest mention of Jews, nazis or Hitler.

Not true. I only posted to five threads where explicit -- in my view objectionable -- reference to the "Holocaust" cult (not to "Jews, nazis or Hitler") had been produced, and not by the posters themselves, but in the clips expressly offered by the site for comment.

This is hardly "derailing" anything, other than the illusion that the "Holocaust" itself is not a religious creed. I simply made my objections in the appropriate places, and justified them by elaborating in greater detail, when discussions of the matter developed and my replies were solicited.

I wasn't aware that the comments columns were exclusively dedicated to devotional prayer.

Said AllanW:

The administrators have placed your delusions at the side of each thread as a result. Not censored, not deleted, not suppressed just sidelined.

Allan W, I know that, and I hope you will be able to see that only one side of the debate -- the reasonable one, by the way, calmly posting logical arguments and hard information, instead of irrelevant ignorant rants -- has been "sidelined," i.e. relegated to alternate threads, while the other side has been conceded every possible legitimacy and advantage.

I won't participate in a closet debate and everything I said before is valid. For your information, here is a repetition of the words I addressed the administrators in my message #182701:

****** A NOTE TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THIS SITE ******

[...]

I will instantly stop posting the moment the administrator informs me that "Holocaust" comments to "Holocaust" mentions by the speakers are no longer welcomed, but naturally I won't be dismissed to any "alternate thread" and go on posting there or anywhere else.

One side of the debate granted loudspeakers and paragons, the other side hardly granted the right to whisper and unable to defend itself in any other way? Now, what kind of debate would that be...

In case this strains you neuron architecture and you're not following me, let me give you an example by citing the latest questions al-rawandi addresses to me, no doubt confident that anyone reading him on the main thread (now his turf) will not go to the trouble of looking over the alternate thread, where the replies do in fact already exist:

Al-rawandi renewed questions (#185317): "Are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion a forgery or not? Do you believe they are real or true? Do you believe the blood libel to be true?"

My replies on this same comments thread, already existent but now relegated to an alternate thread:

-- Concerning the Protocols (#184675): "Yup, both [the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the "Holocaust"] are hoaxes. One anti-Jewish, the other anti-Aryan. Or anti-non-Jewish, or whatever you want to call it [...]"

-- Concerning the blood libel (#184187): "Or maybe you don't get [my point]. I'm not addressing any blood libel accusation at Jews. I'm saying the "Holocaust" libel against non-Jews is equally offensive."

So please spare me the sanctimonious "it's not censoring" drivel intended for the weak of spirit. Any debate under such unequal conditions is a joke. There is only one difference between alternate threading and open censoring: in the first case the censors are actually ashamed of what they do and grasping for excuses.

Sorry, pals, not with me. If you want "alternate debates," suit yourselves by impersonating both voices à la Edgar Bergen & Charlie McCarthy, which, by the way, seems to be what the al-rawandi half-wit is already doing by attributing false quotes to me. So please choose some other names for your dummies incapable of defending themselves.

The very low level of the spiteful response to "Holocaust" analysis on this site surprised me, and presently makes me think that Richard Dawkins's campaign against the Abrahamic religions (others than the one he subscribes to, that is, or maybe it's the ones he feels pose no danger to his "courageous stand") is actually having a pernicious anti-pedagogical effect on many mental wretches incapable of free thought or any tolerance of it.

I'm sincerely sorry about that and I'm out.

Bye.
____________________________________________

P.S. (to Blake):

Blake: "ASM, no I *did* self-censor."

Yes, I know that. I was speaking about myself being censored, not you. I fully understand your not wanting any irrational hate directed at you, and not liking to be called a hate-monger. However, in my opinion, that sort of reaction is responsible for the progressive loss of freedom in the West. We already have our Goldstein, our Newspeak, and our Ministry of Truth. If we do nothing, we'll have the rats gnawing at our faces sooner than we may think.

15. What is science for?

Comment #185310 by ASMarques on May 27, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Said Goldy (to Blake121666):

I can see your point, but to go on this note is to, well, give in. If Muslims shout loudly, they win - not by power or logic of argument, but by intimidation and noise. This what has beaten you?

Goldy, imposed silence doesn't win arguments over calm logical thought, either. Blake was largely agreeing with my points on the irrational "Holocaust" cult. He was not claiming for himself a detailed historical knowledge, nor engaging anyone along those lines, so your side of the argument can hardly claim "to have beaten him."

In case you haven't noticed, most of my messages on the "Holocaust" irrational cult have now disappeared from the comments threads. This did not happen on my initiative, so I must assume they have been censored by the administrators of the RichardDawkins.net site.

Of course, I don't dispute their right to do so, since this is a private site under no obligation of coming to terms with the religious dogmas its owners subscribe to, or to stand up to the Jewish demand for universal censorship over the topic.

I do, however, lament the fact, since I had solicited, in more than one message, the courtesy of being informed that my messages on any particular subject should be deleted or that I should stop posting them, and had informed that I would stop posting altogether in each of both cases (partial or total censorship).

This is, naturally, my last message. On my personal thread I am still able to see -- as I hope others are -- all my messages (they number 160, including the present one):

http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,38300

I would like the administators to at least keep them visible in that closet fashion, since the adversarial messages in response to them, as well as the adversarial messages they were responding to, were not censored in the comments columns. I guess if they cannot be open supporters of loyal debate, well, they can always be at least closet supporters of some form of (to them) closed "debate."

I would also like to underline that, unlike Blake, I don't think I "hijacked" any comments thread, since my messages were reasonable -- they offered a good deal of information on both the "Holocaust" and the "historical Jesus" beliefs -- and directly addressed topics broached by one or more of the participants in each clip that was the object of the comments.

You will easily see that this is true by going over my first comment in each different subject thread. And criticism and eventual debate on a controversial topic among the posters is hardly surprising, unless the purpose of the comments columns is exclusively to laud the participants.

A last comment on (not "to") Diocletian who says "these threads that are completely off topic are annoying," and then goes around posting that same gratuitous message, with no other contents, on every thread where I was posting perfectly relevant arguments.

The claim Diocletian addresses to "those of you moderating the threads" is an interesting one. She writes: "you might wish to consider that people are just going to stop posting or even visiting the site because of few people who apparent[ly] pos[t]ed their perverted views on just about EVERY thread now. They completely derail the discussion."

This claim is, of course, entirely false, and she knows it, since her message was only repeated over the threads where the "Holocaust" cult was under consideration, so she didn't mean any other kind of "annoyance." And "just about EVERY thread" is hardly a correct description of the 5 (repeat: five) threads, out of many hundreds, where the "perverted views" on the sacrosanct "Holocaust" were being expressed, and in every case in a calm, reasonable and relevant way, motivated by the clip itself.

People like this -- not the believers open to discussion -- should be the true enemies of anyone who believes in the power of reason over dogma. You can easily recognise them because their sanctimonious first line when craving for censorship is always -- quote Diocletian -- "while not asking for people to be censored..."

But what problem would the discussion of any subjects that don't interest a given poster pose to that poster, other than the "problem" of easily jumping over them and ignoring them, while proceeding to the subjects that do interest them? Obviously, irrelevance or a lack of interest are not the reasons for their "annoyance."

This is indeed good evidence that the allegedly historical tenets of the "Holocaust" have become a religious cult that cannot withstand rational scrutiny. All that the true believers find themselves able to do about the disputation of their tenets of faith is gnashing their teeth and lobbying for censorship. Unfortunately for them, the cat is out of the bag, and universal censorship is no longer achievable.

you are not in prison, nor is ASMarques.

True, as far as I'm concerned, and I hope you're not lamenting the fact. I am not, but I could well be, if and when the European Union directives demanding restrictive speech-control laws are extended to my country. So, you see, the "Holocaust" and the Jewish power behind it are not as obviously innocent and devoid of evil agendas as you make them.

You didn't get anywhere by running away (well, OK, you - you get away ;-)) and you don't convince others by doing so. Neither, it must be said, can you yourself be convinced of any opposition to your position by running from debate.

Goldy, I don't know how old you are, so I'll spend a few seconds more of my precious time to point out to you that one of the most vile, cowardly, ways of ending any debate that is in fact being censored, is to create the impression that the opposing side does not respond or has taken flight.

Bye now. Back to my delicious lemonade.

16. What is science for?

Comment #184675 by ASMarques on May 26, 2008 at 12:32 am

Said blake121666:

I have to admit that I actually hadn't noticed that ASM uses the term "blood libel" throughout his postings.

We'll agree to disagree on that. I'm a sticker for precision: 6 times in all, in 159 messages, makes once every 26.5 postings. Not exactly "throughout" then, but "rarely."

I scanned through the "blood libel against the jews" wikipedia entry. While I would technically call Holocaust claims a "libel" against the accused, if ASM means "blood libel" as described in that wikipedia entry he's probably joking.

Not joking at all. Why would I be joking?

I mean, why would anyone think that the gas chambers libel held against the Germans (involving even a systematic extermination of children out of some sinister fairy tale!), is not comparable to the blood matzo libel that used do be held against the Jews?

If it's simply because it doesn't involve any gourmet cooking, would the allegation that the SS made sausage out of Jewish flesh in the crematories make you change opinion?

Well, that's what David Olère, the famous eyewitness, told Jean-Claude Pressac (in Pressac, "Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz -- la Machinerie du meurtre de masse," CNRS, Paris 1993, p. 554), and Olère's testimony is supposed to be an important one. Robert Van Pelt, the expert witness for Deborah Lipstadt, produced six of his drawings made in 1945 to the court, during the Irving vs Lipstadt trial.

Biography:
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/ARTS/DOBIO/DOARTS.HTM

Self-portrait of the artist painting a lampshade (what else...):
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Images/484.02.jpg

ASM, why throw garbage such as that term into your postings? I might filter BS too readily when reading things. Honestly, I am interested in empirical facts and not any garbage such as that.

Frankly, I don't get your point. Or maybe you don't get mine. I'm not addressing any blood libel accusation at Jews. I'm saying the "Holocaust" libel against non-Jews is equally offensive.

What's wrong with that? To me, a false claim that the Germans made sausage out of Jews, sounds every bit as offensive as a false claim that the Jews made matzo out of Christians...

Think about it.

17. What is science for?

Comment #184643 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Said MaxD:

I am not denying that currently Jews have an enourmous political clout.

Er... are you an anti-semite?

( ohmygod! )~~ :^O

I am saying that at the time they did not, and didn't have much influence over US foreign policy at the time. EDIT: I suppose I should have said, though I thought it was obvious, immediately post WWII. You are telling me that immediately after WWII the Jews could pull this off?

Okay, I'm getting you now. I didn't care very much because I couldn't believe your, er, anti-anti-semitism was only valid for the immediate post-war period...

I assume, then, that you believe Jews were not in positions susceptible of influencing US policy towards them, or interfering in the US handling of the Jewish issue in the immediate post-war period. I suggest that you consider what the following not-exactly powerless names have in common:

* Henry Morgenthau Jr. -- Secretary of the Treasury; "unofficial" presidential adviser; father of the Morgenthau Plan to re-structure Germany and Europe after WWII. [What was the Morgenthau Plan? See:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Morgenthau.html ]

* Harry Dexter White (Weiss) -- Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; key founder of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; adviser, close friend of Henry Morgenthau. Co-authored the Morgenthau Plan. Soviet spy.

* Bernard M. Baruch -- Financier and adviser to FDR; close friend of Winston Churchill.

* Rabbi Stephen Wise -- Close friend of FDR, spokesman for the American Zionist movement, President of the American Jewish Congress (WJC). In 1933, two years before the Nuremberg racial laws, he led the efforts for a commercial boycott of Germany. On March 27th, the American Jewish Congress and its allies convened simultaneous protest rallies in New York (an overflow crowd of 55,000 in the Madison Square Garden), Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland and 70 other locations). In April 1st, the Nazis replied with a one-day boycott directed at Jewish businesses, in reprisal of "the Jewish atrocity propaganda abroad." In June 1938, Wise told a rally: "I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew... Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race." The history of the soap allegation can be traced back to September 1942, when he announced that he had received a message from an official of the WJC in Europe reporting on the manufacture of soap and artificial fertilizer from Jewish bodies.

* Herbert H. Lehman -- Governor of New York, 1933-1942; Director of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations for the State Department, 1942-1943; Director-General of UNRRA, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, 1943-1946, created to repatriate the refugees who would come under Allied control. UNRRA assisted in the repatriation of millions of refugees in 1945 and managed hundreds of displaced persons camps in Germany, Italy, and Austria during that year. It administered the work of 23 separate voluntary welfare agencies, including the Joint Distribution Committee, the Organization for Rehabilitation through Training (ORT), and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS).

* James Paul Warburg -- Banker and adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt (his father was the Jewish-German-American banker Paul Moritz Warburg); Special Assistant to the Coordinator of Information, William Joseph Donovan. In 1942, when propaganda responsibilities were transferred to the Office of War Information, he became its Overseas Branch Deputy Director. The following quote is attributed to him: "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." (Feb. 17, 1950, to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations).

* David Weintraub -- became head of the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations; helped create the United Nations; joined the UNRRA; Secretary, Committee on Supplies, 1944-1946.

* Nathan Gregory Silvermaster -- Head of the Near East Division of the Board of Economic Warfare; helped create the United Nations. Soviet spy [see the Wikipedia for the names in the Silvermaster spy ring:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Gregory_Silvermaster ]

* Harold Glasser -- Treasury Department director of the division of monetary research; Treasury representative to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. Soviet spy, member of the Perlo spy ring.

* Benjamin V. Cohen -- State Department official; adviser to FDR; counsel for the American Zionist Movement.

* Herbert Feis -- U.S. State Department official; economist, adviser on international economic affairs.

According to Gore Vidal, John Kennedy used to tell the following story about Truman's re-election in 1948:
http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionhist.html

"Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. 'That's why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.' As neither Jack nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics."

Could be true or just gossip, but it certainly shows you how high-placed people within the US political system saw Jewish clout, even before the time you yourself agree it became "enormous."

The following quotes may help you figure out the Jewish role in the War Crimes trials and the concession of unprecedented reparations both to Jewish survivors and Israel, a state that didn't even exist during the war.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html
(see the linked page for the references)

Indicative of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the important Jewish role in organizing these trials. Nahum Goldmann, one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, reported in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials. Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea, he added. (note 8)

The World Jewish Congress also played an important but less obvious role in the day to day proceedings. Above all, the powerful but secretive organization made sure that Germany's persecution of the Jews was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants were punished for their involvement in that process. (note 9)

Two Jewish officers in the US Army -- Lieutenant Colonel Murray Bernays and Colonel David "Mickey" Marcus -- played key roles in the Nuremberg enterprise. In the words of historian Robert Conot, Bernays was "the guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg." Bernays, a successful New York attorney, persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial. (note 10)

Marcus, a fervent Zionist, became the "number three man in making American policy" in occupied Germany. As chief of the US government's War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials. (He later became a commander of Zionist "Haganah" military forces in Palestine.) (note 11)

Some of the Americans who participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the entire business. One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals. "If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here," he declared immediately after sentences were pronounced. "The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident," he added. (note 12)

Wennerstrum cautiously referred to the extensive Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process. "The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome ... Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices." He criticized the one-sided handling of evidence. "Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case." He concluded that "the trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors." Wennerstrum left Nuremberg "with a feeling that justice has been denied."

[...]

In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared: "The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history ... The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst." (note 14) Another Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated: "As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States... A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States." (note 15)

In Nahum Goldmann's own words, in "The Jewish Paradox" (1978):

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/reparations/quotes_from_books/index.html

Apart from my encounter with the survivors of the concentration camps after the liberation, I only returned officially to Germany in order to meet Chancellor Adenauer and open negotiations about reparations. These reparations constitute an extraordinary innovation in terms of international law. Until then, when a country lost a war it paid damages to the victor, but it was a matter between states, between governments. Now for the first time a nation was to give reparations either to ordinary individuals or to Israel, which did not legally exist at the time of Hitler's crimes. All the same I must admit that the idea did not come from me.

During the war the WJC had created an Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York (its headquarters are now in London). The directors were two great Lithuanian Jewish jurists, Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson. Thanks to them, the Institute worked out two completely revolutionary ideas: the Nuremberg tribunal and German reparations.

The importance of the tribunal which sat at Nuremberg has not been reckoned at its true worth. According to international law it was in fact impossible to punish soldiers who had been obeying orders. It was Jacob Robinson who had this extravagant, sensational idea. When he began to canvas it among the jurists of the American Supreme Court they took him for a fool. 'What did these Nazi officers do that was so unprecedented?' they asked. 'You can imagine Hitler standing trial, or maybe even Goering, but these are simple soldiers who carried out their orders and behaved as loyal soldiers.' We therefore had the utmost trouble in persuading the Allies; the British were fairly opposed, the French barely interested, and although they took part later they did not play any great part. The success came from Robinson managing to convince the Supreme Court judge, Robert Jackson. The Institute's other idea was that Nazi Germany ought to pay after its defeat. [...] According to the Institute's conclusions, the German reparations would first have to be paid to people who had lost their belongings through the Nazis. Further, if, as we hoped, the Jewish state was created, the Germans would pay compensation to enable the survivors to settle there. The first time this idea was expressed was during the war, in the course of a conference in Baltimore.

Once the Nuremberg trials were over, this reparations problem received further consideration. Several Jewish leaders then attempted to establish relations with Adenauer, but their proposals were often ridiculous. One organization suggested a payment of twenty million Deutschmarks -- "and at the conclusion of the agreement I obtained, the Germans will have paid out a total of eighty billion!

[...]

Without the German reparations [...] Israel would not have half of its present [1978] infrastructure: all the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israel's industry ... and that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today received hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency each year. [...] In some years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany have been as much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any opposition to the principle -- even some members of Herut draw reparations.

But I don't want to give you the idea that the "Holocaust" was propped up exclusively by the Jews, or that their efforts were opposed by the Allied countries. Indeed what we have is a convergence of interests among all the winners. The British, for instance, were actively fabricating atrocity stories, not unlike those spewed out by the Soviet and Jewish propaganda mills. See, for instance, this article, based on declassified files reported by the British press:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n5p15_propaganda.html

During the Second World War, Britain's main "dirty tricks" propaganda agency was the Political Warfare Executive (PWE), a unit of the British Foreign Office. This psychological warfare agency invented and distributed "black" propaganda disinformation to boost morale among anti-German British and Americans, and to promote anti-German sentiment in neutral countries. Its work also included manufacturing and distributing bogus German documents.

Some of the PWE's most bizarre falsehoods were distributed on phonograph records as part of a secret "Special (Venom)" campaign directed to Arabs. These fables included reports that Hitler hated Arabs, and that a Jewish doctor had cut off the German leader's testicles. Epithets applied to Hitler in this report included including "pig," "swine" and "bastard." Such exotic propaganda was considered necessary, the PWE advised, because Hitler's prestige was "tremendous in Arab countries."

The Arab-oriented campaign also included stories suggesting that the Germans were using mosques as brothels in Axis-ruled Tripoli. According to another PWE story, "Germans [were] so short of cloth they are training agents to disinter bodies in Muslim cemeteries and seize shrouds for use as machine rugs in Germany."

One of the most malicious PWE "black" reports was this April 1943 story: "On entering Tunis Allied troops found dead children cut up as butchers' meat in the German army store. Portions of them had already been used as pork ration. Typically enough, the Germans had filed their identity cards."

Some British officials were skeptical of this campaign's effectiveness. For example, a PWE story that Goebbels had enriched himself during the war, and had hidden away a private fortune, said one official, "would evoke admiration and envy rather than disapprobation."

This "Special (Venom)" campaign was first made public in 1994 when the relevant files were declassified from Britain's Public Records Office (and then reported in The Guardian newspaper, London, September 8, 1994, p. 22).

During the war years, British agencies produced and disseminated a wide range of anti-German propaganda lies. According to one suggested story, the Germans were using poison gas to secretly kill off their own wounded soldiers. This manufactured "rumor," designed to mislead and demoralize the German public, was proposed by Britain's Joint Intelligence Sub-Committee in October 1941. (A facsimile of the secret wartime document confirming this is published in facsimile in the Sept.-Oct. 1993 Journal, p. 43.)

Even some of the more bizarre propaganda stories have proven remarkably durable over the years. A good example is the wartime fable that the Germans were manufacturing oil and soap from the bodies of murdered Jews, a report that became an important feature of Jewish and Allied war propaganda. Two major Jewish agencies, the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Congress, energetically promoted this lie. (See: M. Weber, "Jewish Soap," Summer 1991 Journal, pp. 218, 234.)

I hope this will help you understand that the venomous lies of totalitarian propaganda are still with us, and still making victims: the ones that fall on the wake of the West's permanent waging of war on the reincarnations of the fallen devil and their always imminent reenactings of the "Holocaust" of the Jews...

Must go now, or I'll miss my plane. See you in a couple of weeks.

18. What is science for?

Comment #184457 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 10:28 am

Said Keith:

Now, from the above exchange you derive the following:

ASM: Here is the example [that the Holocaust is a religion based on no empirical facts and is in fact averse to them [Note by ASM: the bold type is my completion of your quote of Blake's claim].]. Trying to argue the truth of the facts without regard for the facts themselves, simply out of one's perceived "ability or inepcy of the conspirators," is not a rational attitude.

Now how, precisely, did you get from my comment that the Holocaust conspirators must be an inept lot if they make such bad fakes (Blake's claim) to your conclusion?

Seems to me pretty obvious that your important implication was not simply "if conspirators make bad fakes, then conspirators must be an inept lot," but rather along the lines of "if conspirators make bad fakes (and thus are an inept lot), then the conspiracy should be falling apart quicker than a cheap suit" (my words to explain the implication as I understood it). Let me quote you: "After all, you'd have to say that Holocaust conspirators must be pretty inept if their fakes are as bad as you say they are," i.e. you were implying that "Holocaust conspirators" are assumed not to be inept by your opposition, whereas no one else -- neither I, nor, as far as I could see, Blake himself -- was necessarily assuming anything of the sort.

And, of course, the point I was making through the example (rather than "conclusion," as you called it) was that people who try to argue alleged facts they have little information on, without regard for the facts themselves and further inquiring into them, are not showing a rational attitude. Your implication, as I understood it, forgot the fact that large, but well-succeeded, intrinsically ridiculous claims are not easily debunkable, otherwise established religions would have gone away a long time ago.

Concerning your global comment, note that you were concentrating on the "blatantly faked poster" -- while ignoring everything else Blake was telling you about disinfestation and homicidal gas chambers, negligible cyanide traces, lampshades, soap, Schindler's List as fiction, the 6 million figure etc. -- and trying to make the (in Blake's own words) "blatantly faked poster" look like maybe not such an intended fake after all, but "perhaps, instead, [...] a deliberate montage that everyone understood to be a montage," without considering that that was precisely what Blake was telling you, namely that "anyone would recognize it as such on close inspection" and "a quick look at it [shocked] you," i.e. that such an offensive picture -- a small German child dressed in winter clothing laughing at piles of naked dead bodies -- is revealing of the bottomless evil of the "Holocaust" propaganda and the absence of scruples shown by the proponents of the anti-German (or anti-Goy, since more or less everyone but Jews seem to be guilty of the suffering of the Jews) blood libel.

If you have difficulty understanding his point, possibly due to the unrelenting "Jewish uniqueness" propaganda you are submitted to in your everyday life, please try to imagine your reaction to a poster showing, through a deliberate montage, a small Jewish child dressed in winter clothing laughing at piles of naked dead bodies, say, in an Ukrainian exhibition of the great famine of 1932-33.

Would you still be using the words "deliberate montage that everyone understood to be a montage" in an exculpating sense? Or would you still be invoking "the guy in the Prado who objects to Guernica, not because he thinks the painting is shit, but because horses don't really have three eyes so it can't be true"? Or calling the montage "artistic license," just "trying to make a point in a very heavy-handed way," because "the curator had made a bad error of judgement"?

You add: "What it would not signify is that millions of Jews hadn't, in fact, died in concentration camps." Well, did you by any chance read the rest of Blake's message? Nothing of interest there that might have caught your eye relative to the "millions of Jews," other than the "deliberate montage"? Like, for instance, "Where did the 6 million figure come from -- no one ever gives any rational derivation"?...

I guess I must go now. See you.

19. What is science for?

Comment #184434 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 7:15 am

Said epeeist:

I note you never mentioned the evasion and failure of relevance.

I was pointing out your apparent ignorance of a particular meaning, not every instance where you had gone wrong.

I think you understand what you mean by "evasion" and "failure of relevance," even though I don't think those descriptions should apply to what I've been saying or leaving out, and even though I have no time to systematically deal with every wrong accusation.

But I don't think you understand what an "ad hominem argument" means. Obviously, an intentionally false accusation that someone used an "ad hominem" argument is in itself ad hominem and worse than accusations of "evasion" and "failure of relevance," that do not aim at the character of the accused, but rather at his alleged incompetence. Hence my advice to you. Here is its context:

MaxD had asked:

QUESTION: "How did the Jews of post WWII Europe manage to pull off this feat (land, power, money grab)?"

I had replied:

REPLY: "You mean simply because you don't believe in conspiracies [this is not remotely an ad hominem claim, since the reluctance to believe in conspiracies, other than the claimed secret conspiracy to remove by stealth an entire race off the face of the planet, had been often implied], you don't believe the Jews of post WWII Europe managed to pull of this feat of land (to the point of taking over Palestine) [this is not remotely an ad hominem claim, since it simply quotes the question and provides a fact], power (to the point of being in control of US foreign policy) [same], and money grab (to the point, for instance, of extracting colossal amounts of money from the German and US taxpayers on account of the big H)[same]?

Mentioning the other part's beliefs -- or indeed statements -- relevant to the discussion, is not resorting to ad hominem argument. Ad hominem means addressing the person making the argument, instead of the argument itself, i.e. if it is done in a way irrelevant to the argument.

For instance, "this man is wrong about the sky being green because he is blind" is not ad hominem (provided the man is indeed blind). But "this man is wrong about the sky being green because he is a Nazi" is.

And so is "this man is wrong about the sky being blue because he is a Nazi." And that's the sort of argument much resorted to by your side of the debate, when it comes to the prodigious gas chambers of WWII Jewish & Allied folklore, that Israel and international Jewry -- an obviously different thing from "every individual Jew" -- want to impose forever on all of us.

Must go now. See you in a couple of months.
_________________________

Post Scriptum:

Said epeeist:

Ignorance isn't a problem, we are all ignorant of most of human knowledge, however "I don't know what "Blood Libel" means and I'm not interested in looking it up." betrays a singular lack of interest in remedying at least part of that ignorance.

You mean you have decided to go read the diabolical revisionist works? Wow.

Let me help you. Here is a fast choice of sites:

IHR
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/index.html

CODOH
The Comitee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
(large site, maintains a forum where you can debate, search or ask for specific information)
http://www.codoh.com/index.shtml

Aaargh
L'Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes
(multilingual site with a vast archive of revisionism in its main section in French, including Faurisson and Rassinier)
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/fran.html

VHO
The Holocaust Controversy
(multilingual site)
http://vho.org/

Air Photo Evidence
(useful maps and air photos)
http://www.air-photo.com/

And here is an introduction to acquaint you with the alleged "vast body of evidence:"

IHR set of leaflets (short and accurate)
http://www.ihr.org/main/leaflets.shtml

A searchable directory, useful for reference by name, concentration camp etc.
http://www.ihr.org/main/search.shtml

A name dictionary in French, equally useful for the same purpose
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/dicbio/dicbiogOancres.html

A short introduction to the study of Holocaust revisionism
http://www.codoh.com/butz/di/intro.html

Context and Perspective in the 'Holocaust' Controversy
(in English, French and German)
http://www.codoh.com/butz/di/context/context.html

The Lüftl Report
An Austrian Engineer's Report on the 'Gas Chambers' of Auschwitz and Mauthausen
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html

I don't know if you're posting from a country where "Holocaust" revisionism is censored, such as Germany, Austria or France, so let me give you a couple of URLs that you and other readers may find useful.

Important: If you live in a country where your government demands that Internet service providers forbid you to look up the evidence, you may access the blocked sites through anonymizers. Here is a good one (all you have to do is place the URL you want to access in the slot, click enter, and you'll be navigating the forbidden waters with no further trouble):

Anonymouse:
http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html

A useful list of anonymizers:
http://www.freeproxy.ru/en/free_proxy/cgi-proxy.htm

20. What is science for?

Comment #184419 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 5:13 am

From several messages (sorry, no time to go into details):

Said MaxD:

You did not answer my question simply impugned my character by claiming I was victim of the argument from incredulity.

MaxD, I didn't "impugn your character," and I'm sorry if I cannot expose the greatest hoax of all times to you in every phase of its development and organizing detail, for the very simple reason that I've not been a part of it. All I can do is to point out that its claims are false and Jews, as an international group, are doing their best -- we should really say worst -- to prohibit digging into it.

And, excuse me, but you're the one who refuses to answer questions. You first ask me "how did the Jews of post WWII Europe manage to pull off this feat (land, power, money grab)"?

Hoping to show you that the Jews, as an international group, are not powerless, poor, unimaginative, and incapable of conspiring, as you apparently make them, I then ask you to explain your question that sounds as if you had any doubts about facts such as the Jewish grabbing of land (Palestine), the power Jews wield (to the point of being in complete control of US foreign policy and having the US fight their wars for them), and the Jewish money grab (to the point, for instance, of extracting colossal amounts of money from the German and US taxpayers on account of the big H, and I may even add blackmailing Switzerland and holding up its banks).

You simply do not answer, but how then can you demand answers to questions that are in themselves unintelligible?

Said epeeist:

Looks like a failure of relevance, evasion and ad hominem to me.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the latin expression. Do look it up, please.

Said blake121666:

The Holocaust is the religion in that it is based on no empirical facts and is in fact averse to them.

Excellent way of putting it. A quick example follows, if I may.

Said keith:

After all, you'd have to say that Holocaust conspirators must be pretty inept if their fakes are as bad as you say they are.

Here is the example. Trying to argue the truth of the facts without regard for the facts themselves, simply out of one's perceived "ability or inepcy of the conspirators," is not a rational attitude. Let me put it this way: how does Keith account for this sort of thing (please take a while to go through the "evidence" listed here):

http://www.cwporter.com/partone.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/parttwo.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/partthre.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/partfour.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/pg368.htm

That sort of "evidence" is from the Allied Nuremberg trials, and many people were hanged (mainly, but not exclusively, in Eastern and Central Europe) on its account. Does the plainly ridiculous level of such "evidence" mean it didn't exist and wasn't recognised by the shamefully one-sided standards of the tribunal? And does that make the conspirators that obviously fabricated the ridiculous "evidence" any less inept?

Said blake121666:

Elie Wiesel never mentions any homicidal gas chambers in "Night". Is Elie Wiesel a Holocaust denier?

True. Elie Wiesel is an interesting example of false literary testimony, because at the time he wrote Night, the big thing were the almost biblical flame pits, not yet the chain-murdering gas chambers. So, that's the lie he adopted, not the gassing one.

Quote: "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)." He describes a ditch with gigantic flames where the victims suffered "slow agony in the flames," and says he himself was led by the Germans to within two steps of it. And then "two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a barracks." Same in Buchenwald, his survival was a miracle: "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?"

Wiesel is a natural born liar and his "Holocaust" idiocies are no exception. Take his interview in the NY Times (5 March 1997, sec. C, p. 1), where he claims that in 1956 he was hit by a taxi in Times Square in Manhattan: "I flew an entire block [...] I was hit at 45th Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 44th. It sounds crazy. But I was totally messed up."

And there you have a very common "Holocaust" line: yes, it was impossible, but yes, it did happen. Well, if it was impossible, sorry, but no, it didn't happen...

Still blake121666:

But on a purely personal note, yes, I do find many of those labeled holocaust deniers as unsavory. But my personal opinions don't matter on the truth value of an event. A religious person would say that he finds atheists unsavory, wouldn't he?

Correct. You see, "Holocaust" revisionists / deniers come in all sizes and political flavours. How could it be otherwise? I like some and I don't like others. Politically I agree with some and don't agree with others. But what has that to do with the reality of the alleged "Holocaust" facts? Nothing!

Gotta go. My lemonade is getting warm. See you in a few weeks.

21. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #184416 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 5:07 am

Said MaxD:

Simply saying hey look at this atrocity happened here, therefore you have no right to criticize what happened here. Bullshit. I am more than happy to be critical of My Lai massacre.

You don't get it. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm simply using events that you presumably accept to show you the difference between the usual ordinary horrors of war (such as the My Lay massacre), and an alleged secret conspiracy of gigantic proportions to exterminate a whole race (no one alleges that that was what the Americans were indulging in in Vietnam).

22. What is science for?

Comment #184261 by ASMarques on May 24, 2008 at 8:17 am

Said Brian English:

Head count. Who here calls themselves a bright? Paula, you're excused. :)

Ah, yes. The face. I used to only read the comments very rarely, but I noticed her and saw her interviewing Dawkins. Very nice presence and clearly a (real) bright person that doesn't go around peddling idiotic hoaxes. So, she's entitled to any title she wishes, and to my apologies as well. My quarrel is not really with the bright people in general, but with the fringe that takes a special delight in shamelessly propagating the "Holocaust" blood libel, while refusing to examine the historical record.

Okay, boys and girls. I've got to fly now. Don't be bad to your dogs and cats and local anti-semites. Ciao.

23. What is science for?

Comment #184229 by ASMarques on May 24, 2008 at 3:47 am

Said Quetzalcoatl:

Witty. Since you're so good at providing links and quotes, perhaps you would like to direct everyone to the precise comment where I described myself as one of the "most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web".

Fair enough. Naturally, I wasn't speaking of each and every individual per se. The quote was from Styrer, but I was obviously using it in an general, impersonal way. I meant the self-congratulatory atmosphere that seems prevalent among most of the locals, i.e. people who actually call themselves "Brights," and then go about proclaiming their faith in the silly "Holocaust" hoax...

Okay, Quetz, you may unruffle those feathers. No one is threatening you.

Cheers. Got to go now.

;^)

24. What is science for?

Comment #184222 by ASMarques on May 24, 2008 at 2:18 am

Said MaxD:

I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time.

Excellent sign. The pursuit of truth is a a harduous task. But you shouldn't give up.

How did the Jews of post WWII Europe manage to pull off this feat (land, power, money grab)? Eh? Seriously.

You mean simply because you don't believe in conspiracies, you don't believe the Jews of post WWII Europe managed to pull of this feat of land (to the point of taking over Palestine), power (to the point of being in control of US foreign policy), and money grab (to the point, for instance, of extracting colossal amounts of money from the German and US taxpayers on account of the big H)? Eh? Seriouly.

You remind me of Butz's excellent summary of the Krakow report (see #184118): "they did not understand how the iron-cyanide compounds got to be there, so they decided to ignore them in reaching their conclusions. I don't understand how the moon got there, so I will ignore all effects associated with it, such as tides. I hope I don't drown."

I've got to go now. See you.

25. What is science for?

Comment #184187 by ASMarques on May 23, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Said MaxD

Cute avatar by the way.

Thank you. I find it amusing to change avatars every now and then, according to campaign developments. Blake121666's comments inspired me this time, but I don't expect cultural anglos to get it. Will change it again in a couple of weeks.

I suspect ASM buys into this protocols of Zion business as well. He has said more than once that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by the Jews in order to swindle the rest of world out of money, land and power.

Yup, both are hoaxes. One anti-Jewish, the other anti-Aryan. Or anti-non-Jewish, or whatever you want to call it, since it sems everybody is actively or passively guilty of it, except for the Jews, even those who actively cooperated with the Axis, such as the terrorist Yitzhak Shamir, who sided with the pro-totalitarian Stern group, was interned by the British, and later became no less than prime-minister of Israel (he has not yet been brought to justice or deported, like poor Demjanjuk is going to be).

See Lenni Brenner's Zionism in the Age of Dictators:
http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zizad/zizad26.html

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

Said al-rawadi (two messages):

I am curious as to whether ASM is in fact David Irving, David Duke, Israel Shamer, or some other whackjob.

Ouch. Finally exposed, all three of us. Only Ahmadinejad managed to escape.

The cartoons of hook nosed Jews, riding Uncle Sam like a horse. Bah.

Well, some of them have hook noses. So what? Are you a nosist?

For example Ernst Zundel was exposed precisely as a fraud, in a Canadian court.

Thanks to Zundel, the medieval law he had been charged under, "reporting false news," was ruled unconstitutional and his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. Hardly a defeat, is it?

Not only was he shown to be a denier of the Holocaust (bad enough)

That must have been difficult indeed to prove in court. Maybe they asked him. Some hard work for the prosecution... (hahaha)~~ :^D

Seriously, I think I can see where your hate for Zundel comes from. His 1988 trial was a landmark event that sent the "Holocaust" mythologists reeling and whining for censorship and repressive laws. It was really history in the making:
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/falsenews.toc.html

If the Holocaust is a myth, hoax and fabrication, how come the only people to discover this have been bigots, discredited non-scholars, the mentally deranged, Islamic militants, and other assorted whackos?

The answer is simple and has often been repeated to you: your "how come" premise is false. The only fraction of truth is the "discredit" part, but given the irrational religious significance of the matter, that's hardly astonishing, is it? I understand how difficult it is to part with long-held convictions you were taught to worship as sacred, but I've already tried to explain how the mechanism of "discredit" functions. Here is how:

-- The facts:

1) Deniers deny H.
2) Deniers get ruined or jailed for denying H.
3) Deniers get discredited for having being ruined or jailed.
4) Denial of H gets discredited, not because it has been proven false, but because deniers got discredited.

-- Your conclusion:

5) Therefore H is true and no conspiracy on behalf of H exists.

If you don't see the perverse absence of logic, I'm afraid I can't do anything more for you. You're beyond repair.

Eagerly awaiting reply.

I wouldn't if I were you, but, well, I don't presume to be the only patient person on this planet.

Back to my lemonade. See you in a few weeks, short of revolutionary developments or old Dawkins again implanting his foot on his mouth, H-wise.

26. What is science for?

Comment #184139 by ASMarques on May 23, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Said Styrer:

Said MaxD:

Blake1i382003920293049238409293209,

You say:

Thank you, MaxD. That gave me the very best laugh of my fucking week.

By Jove. I say, what a terrible week indeed you must have had.

27. What is science for?

Comment #184126 by ASMarques on May 23, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Said blake121666:

If you people can't see that the Holocaust is a largely mythical religion in the way it is presented and not based on facts as ASM has patiently shown you all, then you don't belong on an atheist discussion board. It seems to me that it is *not* ASM who has been the biased, shrill and hysterical side of these discussions.

Wow. A rational life form on Dawkins's planet. I almost spilled my lemonade.

I was afraid of being delusional, and I hate being a sexist pig, but I really was under the impression that the general tone around these parts was rather menopausal. Or andro or whatever. Lots of nerves all around, you know what I mean. Quite unbelievable. Even old Dawkins sounded a bit shrillish on his "Holocaust" number on the clip.

Well, glad to know I'm not the only one to notice.

*** To Maxd ***

Please close your "i" bracket, otherwise you spoil other people's laborious formatting down the whole page. Thanks.

28. What is science for?

Comment #184118 by ASMarques on May 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Said Peacebeuponme:

Quetz

ASMarques may question the scholarship of Wikipedia. However, I think if he comes back he must first attempt a refutation of each of the well presented, and fully referenced, points set out in your third link above.

Look, I am momentarily interrupting my business trip to Acapulco and have just stopped sipping my delicious lemonade, but I cannot unfortunately dedicate all of my time to conduct exhaustive analyses for the benefit of people who seem interested in the subject, but haven't even gone to the trouble of reading the revisionists themselves, instead of the Wikipedia rantings on them. Nevertheless, I have a soft heart and some difficulty in ignoring a call for help, so I'll do a bit of Wiki-exegesis for you. But you'll have to proceed from there on your own.

I will first let you catch the flavour of Wiki-obfuscation by commenting on a few ridiculous bits within the link from the Quetzalcoatl guy that you mention, in connection, by the way, with the "references" sent by the Teratornis guy (why is it that so many of these insecure self-proclaimed "most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web" like to wear plumage on their tails, I wonder).

I will then proceed to develop the very important stuff your Wikipedia link mentions en passant. That's where the real pedagogical value resides, once the whole story is told.

The confusion is so uniform that we may as well begin with the begining:

WIKIPEDIA:There have been claims by Holocaust deniers that the gas chambers which mainstream historians believe were for the massacre of civilians never existed, but rather that the structures identified as gas chambers actually served other purposes. These other purposes include delousing and disinfection.

A disguised red herring. The important alleged "gas chambers" at Auschwitz were in fact morgues. Their purpose was the storing of cadavers, not the turning of living beings into cadavers. It's also true -- and everyone on both sides agrees about that! -- that facilities for delousing were presented as homicidal gas chambers by the Allied propaganda (example: the one with the skull and bones warning and even the gassing times marked on its entrance door at Dachau!). But by phrasing it that way, the Wikipedia "experts" lead you away from the morgues -- an installation with the double purpose of morgue and gas chamber at once is in itself functionally absurd -- and make it sound as if the revisionist claims were false or improbable, whereas in fact it's the exterminationist claims that have been systematically debunked.

WIKIPEDIA:A similar argument is sometimes used that claims gas was not used to murder Jews and other victims, and that many gas chambers were also built after the war just for show.

Note the word "many," to hide the fact that, since practically everyone on both sides of the dispute now agrees that no gassings took place within the Old Reich frontiers, it becomes obvious that indeed there were "gas chambers" within those same frontiers that were built "just for show." And the local claims are still there! See, for instance, my comment #182418 on the Sachsenhausen "gas chamber":

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2527,Shaw-TV-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins,Shaw-TV-Richard-Dawkins,page5#182418

Apparently, the dispute according to the Wikipedia "experts," is not whether "gas chambers built just for show" existed or not, but whether they were "many" or "few." And, of course, they phrase it in such a way ("a similar argument is sometimes used") as to give you the impression that the revisionists are the ones trying to patch up the holes in their claims by coming up with new absurd ideas. But it's not "sometimes," it's "always," and the claim is an obvious fact.

WIKIPEDIA:A document advancing this theory is the "Leuchter Report" by Fred A. Leuchter, a paper stating that only traces of cyanide were found when he examined samples taken from one of the Auschwitz gas chambers in 1988.

Simply false. Leuchter took samples (and found no significant cyanide traces) from all five alleged homicidal gas chamber facilities.

WIKIPEDIA:This is often cited as evidence that gas was not used in the chambers, as no trace amounts remain. Despite the difficulty of finding traces of this material 50 years later, in February, 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, Director of the Institute of Forensic Research in Kraków, redid the analysis.[33]

This is the real important stuff concerning the cyanide evidence within the true gas chambers (for delousing) and the false ones (the crematory morgues), and it's presented in a very confused way. Note the way the reference to the Krakow report is phrased in order to dissimulate the fact that a first never officially published report did exist in 1990, and sending you to note [33] that links instead to the 1994 sham report. Also by not referring the almost incredible fact that the method chosen, despite the difficulty of finding traces of this material 50 years later, was one that only detects instable cyanide compounds! You'll find more references to the Krakow forensic reports below.

WIKIPEDIA:Another claim made by Holocaust deniers is that there were no vents in the gas chambers through which Zyklon B could be inserted[35]. The BBC offers a response showing that this requires disregard of much documentation:

"Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper. Their location in the concrete matches with eyewitness testimony, aerial photos from 1944, and a ground photo from 1943. The physical evidence shows unmistakably that the Zyklon holes were cast into the concrete when the building was constructed.[36]"

Note the quality of the "well presented, and fully referenced" material (according to you). Instead of mentioning the admission of Robert Van Pelt -- an expert witness for the exterminationist side in the Irving vs Lipstadt trial that is not even mentioned in the article -- that the alleged holes are not there, they cite... a "BBC response [!] showing that this requires disregard of much documentation"...

So, you go to note [36] to have a peek at some of that monumental documentation, and here is what you get: the "BBC response" is none other than good old Debbie Lipstadt -- of all wise "Holocaust" scholars -- telling the BBC that "The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper."

How about that, for a scholarly reference to "much documentation"? Well, at least I found out where the Teratornis bird, after getting his tail plumage singed over Dresden (#176554), had gotten himself conned by the hillbilly professor of Jewish Uniqueness (#183361)...

Here is another idiotic claim at random. One could almost pick them up blindfolded:

WIKIPEDIA:Another argument used by Holocaust deniers is that testimony on the gas chambers is unreliable. The Institute for Historical Review is one of the organizations which hold this assertion. In the words of the IHR:

"Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive? Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false."

The Nizkor Project and other sources have pointed out that the minimal concentration of Zyklon-B to be explosive is 56,000 parts per million, while the amount used to kill a human is 300 parts per million, as is evidenced in "The Merck Index" and the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" [etc. etc. etc.].

Again a red herring and, if I'm not mistaken, a false (or partially falsified) quote. No reference other than "in the words of the IHR" is given and I couldn't find it there. What the Wikipedia is hiding from you by leading you away from the essential problem, is the fact that those crazy revisionists object to people with gas masks over their faces going about puffing on cigarettes and eating sandwiches as per the Hoess testimony!

In other words, what Hoess was doing was giving the court and his torturers and blackmailers (both the torture and the blackmailing are well documented) what they wanted from him, while leaving signs in his false testimony that he was reciting nonsensical tales that had in fact never happened.

More on Hoess here:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html
http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/hoess.html
http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/19460514hoess.html

This could go on forever. The Wikipedia articles on the "Holocaust" hoax are so full of this sort of drivel that it really doesn't justify debunking one-sided presentations that a child with some basic information could see through.

Of course, the essential thing here is the basic information. The naive posters who have been clutching at Wikipedia won't get it there. So, my recommendation to them is: in order to criticise the revisionists, read what they write, not exclusively what others have been writing on them.

End of the light part because time flies. Let's see the serious business: the forensic reports on the gas chambers. Here is a brief history leading to a conclusion that you'll have to assess by yourself.

1) 1988: THE LEUCHTER REPORT

The Leuchter Report showed there were very large amounts of stable cyanide compounds in the disinfestation gas chambers, while there were practically none -- consistent with only occasional disinfestation, as in samples from the prisoners' barracks -- in the allegedly homicidal gas chambers (i.e. the ones designated in German documents as "morgues," naturally contiguous to the cremating facilities similar to those existent in "non-extermination"concentration camps).

Quick summary of the circumstances:
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/inside.shtml

The Leuchter Report (1988)
(Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Madjanek)
http://www.ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html

The Second Leuchter Report (1989)
(Dachau, Mauthausen and Hartheim) Fred Leuchter & Robert Faurisson
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p261_Leuchter.html

Download the critical edition of the complete Leuchter Reports here:
http://vho.org/GB/Books/tlr/

2) 1990: THE HUSHED UP KRAKOW REPORT

As a result of the panic that ensued from the Leuchter Report and the simultaneous first real cross-examinations of "Holocaust" eyewitnesses (like Rudolf Vrba) and technical witnesses (such as Hilberg himself) ever made in a court of law, during the Canadian trial of Ernst Zundel, this forensic report resulted from a commission by the Auschwitz State Museum to the Institute of Forensic Research of Krakow. Since the results seemed to confirm Leuchter's own results, the report was quickly hushed up.

Quote from Germar Rudolf:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p-3_Rudolf.html

In 1991, a document leaked out of the Jan Sehn Institute in Krakow into the hands of the revisionists, and was eventually published in their periodicals. It showed that Dr. Markiewicz and his co-workers had prepared a first report as early as 1990. This report was never published. Its results were discomfiting: although the researchers were already employing their deceptive analytical method, only one of the five samples taken from alleged homicidal gas chambers resulted in an extremely small amount of cyanide (0.024 mg/kg); the rest had no detectable cyanide. On the other hand, samples taken from a delousing chamber showed values up to 20 times higher (0.036-0.588 mg/kg). These results seemed to confirm Leuchter's findings. Hence, in their 1994 paper, the Krakow investigators suppressed any information about their initial results. Normally, researchers guilty of such unethical conduct are expelled from the scientific community.

Quote from the article where the report was leaked out (you'll find there an English translation of the report itself and a letter that shows its authenticity from Dr. Jan Markiewicz, then director of the Krakow Institute of Forensic Research):

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p207_Staff.html

[...]

Concerned at the impact of Leuchter's widely-circulated Report, the Auschwitz State Museum, a Polish government agency, commissioned the Institute of Forensic Research (Instytut Ekspertyz Sadowych) of Krakow to carry out its own investigation. The result: In a carefully worded six-page internal forensic report, the Institute's experts essentially replicated Leuchter's findings and implicitly corroborated his conclusions.

Consistent with Leuchter's investigation, the Institute's specialists detected absolutely no traces of cyanide (or ferro-ferri-cyanide compound) in most of the plaster and brick samples taken from the alleged extermination gas chambers. Traces of cyanides were detected in eight samples, seven of which were rooms in Block 3 of Auschwitz main camp where -as the Institute's experts acknowledge - inmate clothing was disinfected by "gassing" with Zyklon.

A barely detectable trace of cyanide compound was found in the eighth remaining "positive" sample, which was sample No. 15 from the alleged homicidal "gas chamber" in Krema building II in Birkenau. Significantly, this is the only sample taken from any of the supposed extermination gas chambers that showed any trace of cyanide. The presence of an almost indetectable trace in this sample is entirely in keeping with Leuchter's conclusion that the room from which it was taken must have been deloused with Zyklon at one time or another.

In an apparent attempt at "damage control," the authors of the Institute's report sought to play down or negate the significance of their own findings by asserting that any cyanide traces would have disappeared long ago under the impact of the weather and the elements.

[...]

It is worth noting that the Krakow Institute's report did not respond at all to other compelling reasons given by Leuchter for doubting the orthodox extermination story. As he points out, for example, the alleged homicidal gas chambers he examined were not properly sealed or vented for use as killing facilities.

[...]

[A translation of the Krakow Institute's forensic report and a letter from Dr. Markiewicz follow this introduction]

3) 1993: THE RUDOLF REPORT

This is an extensive study you can consult or download here:
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/

Rudolf's concluding remarks:

(A) The investigation concerning the formation and long-term stability of cyanide remnants in the witnessed facilities and the analysis of the brick and mortar samples resulted in the following conclusions:

1. The cyanide in the walls, which has been activated into Prussian Blue possesses a long-term stability of centuries ... Cyanide remnants should therefore be detectable in almost undiminished quantities, irrespective of the influence of the weather. This is proved by the intense blue in the outer walls of the delousing chambers of the buildings BW 5a and 5b which contain large amounts of cyanide.

2. Under the actual conditions, as testified to by eyewitnesses of massive homicidal gassing in the disputed chambers, traces of cyanide residues would have formed of the same order of magnitude as those found in the delousing chambers, including the blue coloration of the walls.

3. The traces found in the alleged gas chambers are just as insignificant as those to be found in any building chosen at random.

Conclusion: On chemical and physical grounds, the mass gassing with hydrocyanic acid in the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, as described by witnesses, could not have taken place.

(B) The investigation of the practical and technical data regarding the witnessed mass gassing in the indicated facilities and their physical and chemical analyses resulted in the following conclusions:

1. The alleged main gas chambers of Auschwitz, that is the morgue in the main camp, and the morgue number 1 of Kremas II and III in Birkenau, had no means to introduce the poison. Holes visible today in the roofs were made after the war.

2. The release of the lethal hydrogen cyanide gas from its carrier material could not have taken place in the short time span indicated by eyewitnesses. In fact, it would have taken hours before the gas was completely released.

3. The necessary ventilation of the alleged gas chambers of Kremas II and III, at the rate of one air exchange every 15 minutes would have taken at least two hours, contradicting all eyewitness accounts.

4. An effective ventilation of the alleged gas chambers of Kremas IV and V and Bunkers I and II53 was not possible. The Sonderkommandos could not have removed the corpses from the chambers without wearing protective clothing and gas masks fitted with a special filter.

Conclusion: The mass gassing as described by witnesses cross-examined before courts, as stated in verdicts and published in literary and scientific writings could not, for chemical and physical reasons, have taken place.

4) 1994: THE SECOND (OFFICIAL) KRAKOW REPORT

This is the report Wikipedia sends you to:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/

... even though it mentions the date of the first report (never officially made public, but never denied) that you can read in its entirety in the link to its JHR non-official publication that I indicated in 2).

Here are some comments on this revised report (notes references deleted, you may find them in the linked pages). Make up your mind on its value yourself.

Quote from Germar Rudolf:

Excluding the Unwanted

The authors of the Krakow study ignored all arguments proving them wrong, although they were certainly aware of them, as they quoted them. They made no attempt to prove or to disprove their own claims. They did nothing to understand what they claimed not to have understood.

Was there a reason for their strange conduct?

The answer is very simple: The researchers wanted to exclude Prussian blue and similar iron cyanide compounds from their analyses. Excluding these compounds can only be justified on the assumption that Prussian blue in the walls of the delousing chambers must have a different origin, e.g. from paint. As the Krakow investigators wrote in their 1994 article:

"We decided therefore to determine the cyanide ions using a method that does not induce the breakdown of the composed ferrum cyanide complex (this is the blue under discussion) [.]"

What does this mean?

In fact, the exclusion of Prussian blue from analytical detection must result in much lower cyanide traces for the delousing chambers, as non-iron cyanide compounds are not very stable and would therefore hardly be present after fifty years. The same is true for every room ever exposed to hydrogen cyanide. In fact, values close to the detection level must be expected. These are generally so unreliable that a proper interpretation is close to impossible. It can therefore be expected that the analysis of samples tested with such a method would deliver similar results for nearly every sampling of material that is many years old. Such an analysis would make it practically impossible to distinguish between rooms massively exposed to hydrogen cyanide and those which were not: all would have a cyanide residue of close to zero.

A good summary by Costas Zaverdinos:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n5p26_Zaverdinos.html

In 1994 the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute published a second, lengthier technical report on the Auschwitz gas chambers, basing its conclusions on chemical analyses of numerous brick and mortar samples taken from various buildings. If one accepts the methods used by the authors of this report, the results would appear to prove that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, as they found cyanide residues in the (non-homicidal) delousing chambers in amounts comparable to those found in morgue No. 1 of Krema II (an alleged homicidal gas chamber).

What, if anything, is wrong here? The Polish investigators called the blue wall phenomenon "controversial," and possibly due to paint! In a fax exchange with the Cracow Institute and the authors of this report, Germar Rudolf reminded them that, by their own admission, they had deliberately chosen an analytic method that would not detect Prussian Blue, that is, the vast majority of stable cyanide compounds present in the walls. This fact is crucial to their results and cannot be overemphasized, especially given that the Polish researchers offer no satisfactory explanation for their assertion that the Prussian Blue stains are "controversial," apart from the arbitrary conjecture that "this dye" (as they call it) may have resulted from "paint." They were not even sure if the "blue" was due to cyanide, something they could easily have ascertained.

Sometimes the shorter the comment, the better. Here is how Arthur R. Butz put it:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p12_Butz.html

The argument, to the extent that it was intelligible enough to be summarized at all, was that they did not understand how the iron-cyanide compounds got to be there, so they decided to ignore them in reaching their conclusions. I don't understand how the moon got there, so I will ignore all effects associated with it, such as tides. I hope I don't drown.

In short, in case you didn't get it, and are still counting on your Wikipedia report on the Krakow report: they used a method that only detects instable cyanide compounds -- although they were researching events that allegedly had taken place more than 50 years earlier! -- because they "couldn't understand" how the stable compounds had gotten there!

Again, from Germar Rudolf:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p-3_Rudolf.html

A Lack of Understanding

The team from the forensic institute, Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, and Jerzy Labedz, claims not to have understood how it was possible for Prussian blue to have formed in walls as a result of their being exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas: "It is difficult to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place."

There is no shame in not understanding. Actually, this is the beginning of every science: the cognition of not understanding. In pre-scientific ages, humans tended to find mystical or religious answers to unsolved questions; modern scientists approach problems they don't understand, and sometimes can scarcely imagine, as challenges to investigate, in order to understand. This quest for knowledge is the chief driving force of modern humanity. Should we not expect, then, that the Krakow researchers would next have attempted to learn whether Prussian blue can be formed in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide and, if so, how?

More Lack of Understanding

In 1991 Dr. Markiewicz wrote, via a mutual acquaintance, that he was unable to understand how Prussian blue could possibly form in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide. He thought that quite unlikely, and suggested that its presence might stem from a different source, for example from Prussian blue wall paint used to give the interior walls of the delousing chambers a fanciful, patchy blue coloration. (What for?, one is tempted to ask.) I suggested that he look at the outer surfaces of the walls, which are exposed to environmental influences, and which were partly patchy blue as well. Their color cannot be explained by paint, but only by cyanide compounds spreading to the outside walls over the years, and being converted to Prussian blue. He replied that these blue patches were hard to explain, and first it had to be established that they were indeed Prussian blue. So there were even more questions to be answered before these scientists could conduct their analysis.

http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.4.2.

8.4.2. False Method of Analysis

Many people, both experts and laymen, rely good-naturedly upon the findings of the Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow, i.e., the study published in 1994 by Prof. Markiewicz and colleagues. These Polish scientists, however, tested their samples with analytical methods that were unable to detect stable iron cyanide compounds. They did this because they could not imagine how such stable iron cyanide compounds could form. It is, of course, no shame to fail to understand something initially. Anyone, however, who makes a claim to scientific reliability must, before making statements upon the subject, at least attempt to investigate and understand. But not so the Polish scientists. They assert their lack of understanding as a justification for their failure to act. Has anyone ever heard that failure to understand a phenomenon was any reason for scientists not to study it? To the Polish scientists, this was obviously the case. It would only be permissible to exclude Iron Blue from the study if it were possible to exclude, with practical certainty, that the effects of hydrogen cyanide on masonry could result in the formation of iron cyanide, and, consequently, Iron Blue, and if there were at least some indication that these rooms had been painted with Iron Blue. The Polish scientists completely neglected to do this. And even worse: they did not even attempt to refute my arguments on the formation of stable iron cyanide compounds which I published in early 1993. They were familiar with this publication, because they quoted it, but not, for example, in order to discuss my arguments, but simply to condemn it flatly as an example of the allegedly diabolical deeds of the 'deniers' and the 'whitewashers' of Hitler, who Prof. Markiewicz and his colleagues intended to refute-so their own words. This should suffice to show that the Polish actions were ideologically motivated, to a high degree. If they had been neutral scientists, they would have applied the correct and interpretable method of analysis and would have discussed my publications in a scholarly manner instead of worrying about Hitler's dirty laundry.

Prof. Markiewicz and his colleagues did not even attempt to find any explanation for the high iron cyanide concentration in the walls of the disinfestation chambers and their blotchy-blue surfaces.

Although they had sought out an analytical method able to produce the results desired by them, the results of their first series of tests were obviously so disturbing that they decided to suppress them and never published them. These data only became public knowledge through an act of indiscretion in 1991 (see chapter 8.3.2.).

The Polish scientists therefore rejected the undesired results of their first series of tests and took even more samples, until they finally produced the results that fitted in with their preconception: this time, both the samples from the disinfestation chamber and the alleged 'gas chambers' showed cyanide residues on the same order of magnitude.

But even Prof. Markiewicz and his colleagues, during the test fumigations performed by them, at least confirmed that moist cement mortar (as was used in the morgues of crematoria II and III) absorbs at least ten times more hydrogen cyanide than dry lime mortar (as used in the disinfestation chambers), as I had assumed for my calculations in this work.

Present situation:

-- Fred Leuchter was blacklisted in the US, hounded by the "Holocaust" lobby and vilified by the media. He was arrested and jailed in Germany for giving an anti-Holocaust lecture. Allowed out on bail, he returned to the US and chose not to go back to Germany to stand trial. Nonetheless, he lost his livelihood as a result of his pioneering role in the investigation of the alleged gas chambers.

-- Germar Rudolf was charged and tried in Germany for not believing in the standard Auschwitz story. As a scientist, he found the "gassing" claims to be scientifically untenable and, therefore, absurd. He was found guilty and convicted because he refused to renounce scientific facts and his own scientific tests and findings. He was dogged by the "Holocaust" enforcers over four different countries, and finally deported from the United States, in spite of being married to a US citizen, having a child from her, and having asked for political asylum there. He is now purging a jail sentence in Germany.

-- The Auschwitz State Museum is happy with the results of the (second) report commissioned from the Institute of Forensic Research of Krakow. And, oh yes, they still tell the tourists and the poor children sent to them for brainwashing that the "reconstructed gas chamber" in the main camp is an "original one in pristine state."

Conclusion? I leave it to you.

Advice? I advise you not to trust the Wikipedia on the "Holocaust." Read the revisionists first-hand yourself, not the hatchet jobs done on them.

29. What is science for?

Comment #183405 by ASMarques on May 22, 2008 at 4:08 am

Dear Brights,

I'll be away for a while on a business trip to Acapulco, probably until some new clip mentions again the H hoax. This shouldn't take too long, if past experience is a guide. During the meanwhilst, you may satisfy your fascination with matters holocaustic by studying the fine messages I lovingly created with your best interests in mind. They link to many hidden treasures of wisdom and are generously sprinkled all over these five threads:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2443,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Questions,BBC
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-Richard-Dawkins-Michael-Shermer
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2472,Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss,RichardDawkinsnet
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2527,Shaw-TV-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins,Shaw-TV-Richard-Dawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2604,What-is-science-for,Sir-John-Sulston-John-Harris-Richard-Dawkins

Jot down your main observations or doubts, and we'll discuss them later.

Now, you Bright folks don't seem to get the idea that "evidence" is not the same as "claim of evidence." This is quite excusable because your best source to the silly "Holocaust" hoax seems to be the Wikipedia. But if it vanishes in front of your eyes the instant you invoke it, it's not evidence, it's simply a false claim of evidence, much like the genius inside that lamp on your desk. If you rub the lamp and nothing happens, and then you break it and still nothing happens, except your dad and mom getting mad at you, what that means is there was simply a claim of a genius, not a real genius. Same for a million geniuses if that is what the claim is. But you must do the rubbing. It's not enough to point to the lamp and say "see this genius here" or "see this million geniuses here."

So, as I have repeatedly told you, I will be glad to present a short report to you on any eyewitness, confession or speech you may believe constitute "good evidence." Shouldn't be too difficult if there is so much of it. So why not choose some good evidence and send it over?

Tell you what: since my free time, alas, is not infinite, I propose you choose one real good trustful eyewitness, one real good sincere confession, and one real good murderous speech.

I will then take a little while to appreciate each of the three and send you my opinion on them. If they crumble before your eyes, well, you should consider the probability of having picked up precisely the bad apples when the good ones were allegedly so abundant. And in that way you'll be able to start to appreciate how vacuous is the so-called evidence on record. How about it?

It's really in your interest, not mine. Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn.

See you.

Yours Truly

30. What is science for?

Comment #183384 by ASMarques on May 22, 2008 at 2:40 am

Said epeeist: AS Marques - can I introduce you to clearmind, he is a Romany.

How do you do.

Clearmind - can I introduce you to AS Marques, he is a facist.

No, I won't exterminate him, if that's what you're asking. Some of my best friends are Romanies and besides, he is much more coherent than the "Holocaust" peddlers that infest these parts.

31. What is science for?

Comment #183361 by ASMarques on May 22, 2008 at 1:09 am

Said Teratornis:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/deniers_06.shtml
"Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper. Their location in the concrete matches with eyewitness testimony, aerial photos from 1944, and a ground photo from 1943. The physical evidence shows unmistakably that the Zyklon holes were cast into the concrete when the building was constructed.

There is much additional evidence affirming Auschwitz/Birkenau's role as a killing centre. There is no reputable evidence that affirms the deniers' claims."

Let's see, who should I trust. The BBC, or some anonymous person on the Internet who routinely commits logical fallacies that I easily recognize? Boy, that's a tough one.

Teratornis, your trust in the broadcasting media as the Voice of Our Lord, channeled by no other angelic medium than Deborah Lipstadt, deeply touches me, and frankly I don't know what to say about that, other than to point out that the same Voice used to say the ashes of some 4 million people -- yup, the old figure we are now (falsely) told that only the crazy commies used to believe in and immortalise in stone -- had been flushed to a small backyard pond in Auschwitz. And it did so, not through the hilarious Deborah "No Debate" Lipstadt spokesperson, but through no less a figure than Jacob "Have Some Hair" Bronowski in the BBC documentary series The Ascent of Man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

The Voice is well known for feeding the faithful convenient pseudo-history that always transubstantiates in, or consubstantiates with (the matter is disputed, much like the Funcionalist vs Intentationalist approach to Hilberg's Holy Problem of the Vast Extermination by Telepathic Consensus), different versions of pseudo-history, according to the necessity of the moment. See, for instance, the case of BBC producer Lawrence Rees, the falsifier that I myself caught in flagrante delicto:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/Marques_150405.html

Then an interesting exchange followed in an exterminationist blog. Warning: you won't be able to understand the (very common) subtle logic of the falsification and how one alleged gas chamber (the industrial "epicenter" in Krema II) is magically turned into another (the "little cottage," maybe near Bronowski's "little pond," who knows...) if you don't read my own messages to the end, in the comments columns:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/when-deniers-are-right.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/i-have-seen-gas-chambers-i-have-seen.html

Back to the Krema II epicenter.

Certainly the Lipstadt lines you point out make it seem as if it's only "the deniers" who deny the holes. Not so. Unlike Lipstadt, who is a sort of hillbilly professor of Jewish Uniqueness who likes to talk off the cuff, and generally doesn't even know what she is talking about, Robert Van Pelt has been to Auschwitz and he was recognised as an expert witness for the defense -- i.e. Lipstadt's own exterminationist side -- during the Irving vs Lipstadt & Penguin trial.

Now here is what Van Pelt says:

"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, what the expert witness under Irving's cross-examination is admitting is the alleged Birkenau Krema II holes are not there, maybe because they 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!

Now, I am not implying that Van Pelt was actually 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 refilled 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 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).

Unbelievable? Yes. Untrue? Not. See my post #174561:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2472,Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss,RichardDawkinsnet,page3#174561

Now, 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 now, after revisionists brought them into the open in the 70s, 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.

And my question to you is:

PREMISE 1 -- Since the holes are not there and no refilling can be detected,...

PREMISE 2 -- ... and the cyanide that should have been there is also absent,...

PREMISE 3 -- ... and the Voice venerated by the faithful Teratornis, through people like broadcasting producer Lawrence Rees, feels the need to establish new trends in Nazi pseudo-gassing, by taking them by stealth out of the clearly visible "epicenter" into the alleged dark small cottage (of candy?) in the deeps of the unknown forest (see the exchange in the exterminationist blog linked above),...

CONCLUSION? -- ... which way does the "convergence of evidence" point: Krema II gassings true, or Krema II gassings false?

32. What is science for?

Comment #183045 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 9:13 am

ASM,

Because your posts are quite long, I can only claim to have read one or two without skipping bits.

I'm awfully sorry if I'm not the Reader's Digest. I must think of those who have been protesting because I don't throw in enough original stuff for their taste. You know, the "just links to the devilish sites I'll never even peek into!" sort of protest. Sorry if I fail you on the excess side. Can't satisfy all customers.

The fact that there might never have been a lampshade made out of human skin does not in itself prove that the Holocaust didn't happen.

That's what I call a king-size red herring. I never said it did, as you well know. Obviously a single ridiculous allegedly human lampshade doesn't count for any "Holocaust" falsifiability, whatever your definition of the Big H amoeba may be (however I expect you to agree that the non-existence of the chain-murdering gas chambers is quite a different matter).

What the lampshades, the shrunken heads and the humans soap idiotic stories show you is the standards of the evidence concocted at the trials you base your knowledge of the German war crimes on, including the "Holocaust" gigantic hoax. And I don't mean exclusively the main Nuremberg IMT. I mean the smaller camp trials as well.

I'm not sure that even the most callous person would call 300,000 dead 'a hoax'. There surely comes a point when the number of dead ceases to have an affect on how we view a crime.

If 300,000, the hoax is not the 300,000. The hoax is the 6 million.

Is 300,000 really so much less serious than 6 million?

As an immediate matter of fact, it's 5,700,000 deaths less serious. I hope the life or death of 5,700,000 Jews doesn't leave you indifferent.

As a deeper reading, if the choice you imagine is between 6 million under (obviously intentional) industrial chain-murder in gas chambers as described by the exterminationist camp, or 300,000 from every sort of unwarranted causes, mainly under the disastrous conditions at the end of the war, as most revisionists assume, yes, absolutely, there is a radical difference to it.

Said Elli:

ASM: how did all those Jewish people die, then?

That's an easy one, o Elli of the beauteous avatar, daughter of Jewish Israelis, who has interviewed numerous "Holocaust" survivors: most of them didn't die, hosanna and hallelujah!

I don't know if Elli had been particularly nasty to you, but this kind of taunting is just vile. Could you not have just answered the question and left the spitefulness to one side?

Don't be silly. Where do you read any spitefulness? I, for one, would think less Jewish victims should be good, not bad, news.

If you want spitefulness follow the "Nazi hunters" on the prowl looking for more innocent old men to nail, in order to gain a few extra mileage for their despicable propaganda. That's real spitefulness, I assure you.

33. What is science for?

Comment #182988 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 7:34 am

Said uncle tungsten (great name! I like it.)

The commonly accepted figure for the number of extermination victims is 6 million.

Where does this figure come from?

Hmmm, could it be straight out of the cabalistic night of times?

You know, six days to create the World, six pointed stars, six extermination camps...

Have you noticed this earlier instance of the 6 million figure dating from 1919 (yes, that's nineteen hundred nineteen) in The American Hebrew, October 31, 1919 (page 582), The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop! by Martin H. Glynn, former Governor of the State of N.Y.?

http://www.historiography-project.com/images/091031crucifixion.gif

"From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread. These children, these men and women are our fellow-members of the human family, with the same claim on life as we, the same susceptibility to the winter's cold, the same propensity to death before the fangs of hunger. Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. We may not be their keepers but we ought to be their helpers. In the face of death, in the throes of starvation there is no place for mental distinctions of creed, no place for physical differentiations of race. In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand. Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood. In this threatened holocaust of human life (...)"

Holocaust of human life? Six million calling for help? Bigoted lust for Jewish blood? In 1919? Crucifixion of Jews when a lot of people were being starved all over Germany and Northern Europe?

Does that sound familiar?

Equally intriguing, how come the figure of 6 million was already known to the US Congress in March 1945, at a time when the war was still on, no German top officials or camp administrators had been captured, and no confessions had been obtained, 3 weeks before the Americans took over Dachau and the British took over Belsen, and 6 weeks before the Soviets released their Special Comission Report on Auschwitz? See clip at (08:46):

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/nazishrunkenheads/nshrunkenheads.wmv

[There is a small error in there: the idiotic "atrocity display" we see in the photos was mounted near Buchenwald, not Nuremberg, but the atrocity bric-à -brac itself was indeed presented and accepted as evidence at a variety of trials, including the ones at Dachau and Nuremberg. The short movie on the whole is accurate and perceptive]

See you soon, uncle tungsten. I must go get a couple of kosher sandwiches now. This running business already made me faint twice.

34. What is science for?

Comment #182906 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 5:40 am

Said AfraidToDie:

You seem to be driven by a single issue that consumes you, that the Holocaust did not really happen, that it is a conspiracy.

Please note that you're the one who seems to believe the "Holocaust" was an unbelievable conspiracy. I believe it was simply a convergence of interests in a common lie, together with the nearly inexhaustible human capacity to believe in fairy tales. My conspiracy requires only a common will to believe in fairy tales, while yours requires a fairy tale proper, complete with devils, ogres and monsters: Adolf Hitler and the branch of humanity known as "the Nazis," regardless of any statistical evidence for such an uniformly diabolical large group of people secretly sworn to monstrous deeds. You should reread your Goldhagen with your eyes open.

And I really hate having to repeat this à la Clockwork Orange to shock you into deconditioning, but, well... could you go back to (use Search within page): "a vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate [...] survivors galore from such alleged "extermination centers" as Auschwitz exhuberatingly manifesting themselves everywhere more than 60 years later?"

Ouch.

As "whacky" as conspiracy theories can be, you still put together some very rational statements. My image of you is one of a potentially brilliant madman (sorry, but perhaps delusional too). Am I wrong?

You don't need to be sorry, but does that question of yours make any sense at all, given the premise? I mean lying Cretans and all that stuff...

how do you feel about Jewish people?

I've answered that one already: I feel Jews are ordinary people, often with big noses and very nice IQs, under the curse of the worst religion ever invented.

I have a feeling you are very anti-semtic, which may be the source of your delusions.

You're wrong. Some of my best friends are Palestinians.

Oh yes, do you "buy in" to any of the other major conspiracy theories, such as the one claiming that we never landed anyone on the moon, or is Holocaust Denial the only one?

Yes, I firmly believe the Nazis made it to the far side of the moon. See here with your own eyes if you don't believe it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEueJnsu80

35. What is science for?

Comment #182855 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 3:49 am

Said Teratornis still smoking from his Dresden tripe, er, trip:

There is a lot less doubt that the Earth moves than there is doubt that the Holocaust occurred.

How silly can you get? The movement of the Earth is a matter of physical convention (absolute movement makes no physical sense), not an absolute ontological description of an alleged event in history that either happened or didn't happen.

1) "The Earth moves" is the same kind of statement as "the Milky Way moves."

2) "The Second World War happened" -- let's choose a well-defined set of events as a provisional stand-in for the Big H, in order to avoid the permanent shape-changing of the conceptual propaganda amoeba that goes from "extermination / gas chambers / approx. 6 million" to "oh lots and lots of Jewish suffering" quicker than you can bat an eye -- is quite differerent. It's the same kind of statement as "yesterday I broke my leg." It either happened or didn't happen. It's an absolute assertion, ontological in character. For instance, the burning down of New York in 2007 is false, but the burning down of Dresden in 1945 is true. And so on and so forth.

By your principle of doubt being inversely proportional to the size of a lie, what does that imply about the size of the lie that the Earth moves?

You didn't get it. It's not a scientific principle. It's a rule of thumb applied to political / religious propaganda such as the "Holocaust" hoax. I assumed most people would even be familiar with the character who first formulated it, and get the joke. You may have heard of his magnum opus: This Struggle of Mine. Or something like that, can't remember exactly.

By the way, you should keep in mind that the Ptolemaic system (immobile Earth at the center) was a perfectly sound scientific theory that accounted for the known facts until more data was forthcoming or more ingenious experiments were devised. And, of course, relativity brings an even better insight to the whole problem than the Tycho Brae or Copernican systems do, since the notion of an absolute frame of reference for the universe with the Sun at its center is every bit as absurd as one for the Earth or indeed any other "absolute" frame.

A formulation that you may find useful is as follows: if new data concerning an alleged historical event demands a new theory on sound rational grounds, you don't insist in the previous theory on the grounds that many folks swear by it, or that it has "already been proved" by the courts of law, or the high-priests of your favourite religion, or the many interests congregated around it, or whatever. You simply call in the facts and re-examine what every stubborn idiot who refuses to discuss them thinks is the truth ("revisionism," get it?).

Example:

-- Once upon a time, many eyewitnesses swore an alleged gas chamber roof had holes in it through which Zyklon B was poured as a means of mass murder.

-- Then an amazing discovery is made: there are no significant traces of cyanide in the gas chamber, where every known law of physics told you there should have been.

-- Then a further even more amazing discovery is made: there are no holes in the said roof of the alleged gas chamber.

-- And then the folks who have been investigating the matter get thrown in jail and new laws are passed to avoid public discussion of the facts.

You cannot simply say that the new facts shouldn't be considered because the court of law said so, or the eyewitnesses swore on their scout's honour, right?

How then would you feel about discussing this little matter and its implications, instead of moving away from it at all costs?

I mean, how would you feel about the "Holocaust" if none of the alleged gas chamber had ever existed? Would you be tempted to investigate a little deeper into the allegation of 6 million dead? After all, 4, oops, I mean 1.5, of those 6 million were supposed to have occurred in Auschwitz alone and no demographic study leading to the figure exists. And how about the extermination plan? If no gas chambers, how about the Treblinka steam chambers and the non-toxic Diesel chambers and all the other crazy devices? Couldn't they be mythical as well?

If it was possible for the massive historical evidence for the Holocaust to be completely fabricated with such apparent authenticity,

Again you don't seem to get the fact that the "Holocaust" is not a "free form" event, and there is no evidence at all of either an extermination intent (it was supposed to be a telepathic hush hush business that left only secret coded signs), or of any gas chambers (quite the opposite!), or any 6 million, but for... alleged eyewitnesses and oracles, with strong personal interests in the matter...

You cannot talk about any "massive evidence" consisting of human testimony, if contradictory hard facts exist. If a hundred eyewitnesses swear they have seen you swallow an entire truck, that means a hundred false witnesses, not that you were hungry.

then there is no historical evidence which we can trust, including all the historical evidence you present as being somehow authoritative.

Wrong. You have, for instance, the famous taboo holes that can never be mentioned except by the naugthy deniers.

If we can doubt all this other evidence, what makes yours better?

Physicality. It's there in physical space, not in mental "eyewitness" or "confession" space.

And if your evidence looks better, wouldn't that suggest by your reasoning that it had only been that much more skillfully faked?

No. All things are not equal in the world of our common experience.

In what way could the non-existence of the holes be faked other than by magical means? Even if you manage to pour cement into a hole in a reinforced concrete roof with internal rebars etc. without the stupid patch falling to the ground, the filled place will remain perfectly detectable. Not the case according even to a "Holocaust scholar" such as Van Pelt.

Why not then debating the implications of the Krema II case, comparing it with the history of so many "plenty of evidence" claims now abandoned?

36. What is science for?

Comment #182776 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 12:49 am

Said Styrer:

And so the Holocaust denier dings his final ding.

Never ding other folk's final dings, or they may write yet more rings around your dingbats.

You failed my little test.

Ohmygod. I was afraid of that. Makes me so sad...

*snif*

The answer was: I wanted to listen and learn, not speak. [...] I suspect that the above is a concept you really will never understand.

Well, and what were you expecting me to do? Perhaps project magnetic "Holocaust" debunking energy in your general direction? If all of your folks refuse arguing such simple stuff as the holes / no holes consequences for the future of the mythical gas chamber, and if you personally refuse "unoriginal thoughts" and think the many references I indicated were not even worth looking over, much less debating, because "only 400 people post there," or whatever your reasons were, what in heaven were you expecting me to do to enlighten you on the subject? Send you some original poetry? Or say "fa fe fi fo fun, deniers have more fun" and, presto!, turn you into the highest-IQ member of Mensa?

You really are the most despicable of denying cunts.

Thanks a lot, but I deny that as well. Anyway, dear fellow, silly name calling -- obviously at a safe distance -- only shows who is desperate for arguments. Believe me, it doesn't make you look brave, only silly and well, yes, somewhat cuntish (no sexist slur on my part; your boomerang is free to fly on on its own).

Here you are. You have been here for a month. You have tried your dodgy ideas out on some of the most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web.

We may disagree over that one. Indeed one of the surprises I had -- I usually listen to the Bright stars, as they modestly like to call themselves, but hardly used to read their fan mail -- was the rather modest level of the comments columns.

You have been repeatedly and fixedly and robustly condemned for subscribing to beliefs which fly in the face of modern historical inquiry, and in the face of massive amounts of evidence showing that your ideas hold no water whatsoever.

Could you quote the evidence, any evidence, that may have slipped by me throughout this longish, but quite agreeable, exchange? Thanks.

Or is your expression "massive amount" strictly equal to zero? "Nicles batatóides" as we say on this side of the Iberian Peninsula...

And yet you cling, ever more desperately, to your pre-conceived notions of unevidenced negationism.

Desperation is the name of the game. That's why I cannot stand your cruel taunts, boo hoo hoo...

Fuck off.

Ohmygod, you're making me wet my pants again, bwa ha ha ha!

:^D

37. What is science for?

Comment #182748 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Said Mbee:

My parents went through WWII and after the event there was never any denial (apart from those involved trying to save their own necks) about the holocaust and what happened, or any doubt that it happened - there was plenty of evidence to support it.

Some of that evidence concerned soap made from Jewish victims, shrunken heads, human skin lampshades, gas chambers at the camps of Dachau, Ravensbrück, Mauthausen, Natzweiler-Struthof (near Strasbourg), Stuttof (near Danzig), Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen etc.

Now you're told that in spite of the evidence -- and indeed in spite of the executed people for many of those alleged crimes -- they were, after all, only an April 1st joke, so to say.

In some of those places you'll be shown the alleged gas chambers with faked showers and all, but you won't any longer be required to believe in that trash. How come? How come if both the eyewitnesses swore under oath it was true and the guilty parties confessed their crimes?

This is a mystery for you to ponder. I suggest you read a few short pamphlets on the subject and start asking yourself questions:

http://www.ihr.org/main/leaflets.shtml

There were plenty of witnesses to the events and apart from those involved nobody, until recently, was trying to make a case that it didn't happen.

Wrong again. One of the first revisionists was Paul Rassinier and he spent all of his life making just that case, in spite of persecution and violent hostility from all quarters. He was an ex-prisonner of Buchenwald and Dora who one day, shortly after the war, was writing a book about the camps he had been in, and caught himself telling his readers about the Buchenwald gas chamber he had... read about. He paused and thought to himself: "Wait a minute, what am I doing? I was there and never saw any gas chamber!" And that was the beginning for that remarkable man who kept fighting all his life on behalf of his own jailers whom he felt had been the victims of a great lie and injustice, much as himself had been.

You should keep in mind that it is hardly surprising that the real big lies are always the ones least doubted. How many people with no religion do you know?

From what I have seen there is no overwhelming evidence to contradict the evidence that the holocaust did happen.

You cannot see without looking first. The heart of the "Holocaust" myth is the so-called extermination camp of Auschwitz and its gas chambers. Start there. You have at your disposal a prodigious medium that frustrates all forms of censorship. Use it. I cannot obviously explain a world of data in a few words, nor do I wish to act as an used car salesman à la "Holocaust scholar." I can only point you in a direction you may never have tried before.

So unless some good reliable evidence to contradict history comes along the holocaust did happen!

Good point -- evidence is all you'll get -- but it's the other way around. It's the incredible and miraculous claims that need exceptionally good evidence. What you should say is not "show me there is no orbiting teapot"; but rather "show me the orbiting teapot you claim there is."

For the same reasons, don't go about saying "show me there are no magic holes in the roof of Krema II," but rather "show me where the non-magic holes you claim are."

38. What is science for?

Comment #182701 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Said Styrer:

Can you edge slightly closer towards a reason for my silence?

Sure I can. You sound pissed off probably because you're smart enough to have noticed the dismal performance of the "erudite" faithful you mention (maybe you can quote one of those erudite bits, by the way). I guess newcomers to this discussion may feel tempted to investigate the said level of "erudition" and be at least as bemused with it as I've been all along. In spite of everything, the level of brainwashed belief in a silly hoax cannot completely blunt one's sense of humour...

I suspect that your self-imposed cut-and-paste policy of posting unoriginal thoughts here prevents you, on your own, from making such a connection as I've tried to spell out for you above.

Let me see. Does your "no cut-and-paste policy of posting unoriginal thoughts" mean that anyone defending a given viewpoint should not be able to use other people's, as well as his own, ideas and formulations that may be entirely relevant to the matter in debate, if that's an accurate way of making the point he wishes to make and due crediting is made?

What kind of debating rule is that? Are you by any chance confusing a debate made of short exchanges and extremely important reference materials on comments columns such as these, with the writing of original novels? How silly -- or desperate -- can you get when you have no arguments left to protect the big hoax?

You say you were very much interested in the debate and only my posting of "unoriginal thoughts" put you off. Well, your ranting at the collective CODOH forum and those who post there seem to indicate that the debunking of the hoax, rather than the style, is what you can't stand.

Perhaps you would have preferred the no-facts, no-ideas, style of the "erudite" posters: yes it's a hoax, no it ain't, yes it is, no it ain't. That would have been great, wouldn't it? Sorry to disappoint you: I'm looking for those holes and the prodigious disappearing gas chambers, not for pointless childish games.

It really is important to think for yourself.

Oh? And if that precious autonomy of thought leads you to agree with, say, Darwin's theory of Evolution, that means you cannot quote him, or Dawkins, or anyone else whom you feel deserves to be pressed into service -- and naturally credited -- in any given debate?

Or maybe the theory is already taken and you must devise a different one for yourself? Well, I guess you must have a brilliant future as an all-around original genius...

But you shouldn't be unkind to "Holocaust" revisionists and deniers. They all started from scrap, every bit as convinced or oblivious of the hoax as you are, and they all had to go through a difficult self-recentering effort. Maybe you should try a little individual effort at thinking for yourself too, instead of requiring more "original thoughts" from others.

Start with the holes in Krema II (in the conditional form to avoid immediate mental paralysis): what does it mean if they are not there? What are the implications? Now, why isn't that a valid question deserving your attention? And why do you wish I couldn't or wouldn't link to sites where one can see how deep and shameless the Gas chambers sham has been? Any opinion on the photos and documents on the Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg or Dachau gas chambers I showed you? How about the Auschwitz "reconstruction"? Unable to say anything original about that too? Why so?

Have a go. You might like it.

So will you, if you try. Here is the first step: look for the truth. Not for the ideologies, or the morals, or the convenient excuses. The facts and nothing but the facts. The rest will come by itself.

****** A NOTE TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THIS SITE ******

I understand your dilemma. You don't like censoring and these columns are hardly the place for this sort of debate, but please note the following: I have never posted a single "Holocaust" comment in any thread where the subject had not been mentioned in a disreputable way on the video. And I have never posted a message on the same thread after that, except in reply to other posters. So the question you must eventually ask yourselves is not why I don't give up [*], but why so many speakers speaking of everything under the sun always insist in saying the mass against the heretics, while at the same time paying soft -- very, very soft -- lip service to the anti-inquisition side of the heresy debate that finds itself in jail or at the stake. What kind of people are these speakers that cannot put up or shut up? Don't they have any shame left? Can't they at least shut up if they can't come up with anything better and more informed? Why the absolute need to broach the subject every 15 minutes or so, if they have nothing more to say but repeat the big lie without daring to debate it?

Thanks for your attention and precious time. I too have other thing to do, though right now none better or more urgent.
_______________________

[*] I will instantly stop posting the moment the administrator informs me that "Holocaust" comments to "Holocaust" mentions by the speakers are no longer welcomed, but naturally I won't be dismissed to any "alternate thread" and go on posting there or anywhere else.

39. What is science for?

Comment #182657 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Said Styrer:

Hello ASMarques

How do you do.

I've read with interest your posts over the last month, without making comment.

And why not?

I must say that you really do seem to be on your last legs here, now dismissed by admin to an 'alternate thread' - the secular e-equivalent of hell.

Ah, I can see why not. What I can't see is why you feel like bragging about it...

Well, not my problem. Anyway, if your "just over, er, 400, including me" can make so many cowards tremble, together with their rotten governments, then big new things must be in the making. Wait and see: History is a constant source of surprises.
___________________

P.S.: Do you really expect anybody interested in the subject who will read your Johnny-come-lately analysis will trust you enough not to look by themselves? Get real and start looking for those holes... ;^)

40. What is science for?

Comment #182645 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Said Elli:

ASM: how did all those Jewish people die, then?

That's an easy one, o Elli of the beauteous avatar, daughter of Jewish Israelis, who has interviewed numerous "Holocaust" survivors: most of them didn't die, hosanna and hallelujah!

And that, by the way, is why you were, and will be, able to interview so many of them, even though more than 60 years have gone by, and many more must necessarily have died between 1945 and 2008.

Out of interest, what is your alternative hypothesis to account for the 6 million dead?

My alternative to the 6 million oracular wisdom tumbling down from the clouds is as follows:

1) HARD DATA OF JEWISH ORIGIN:

Whenever it's possible to peek into the Kadosh Hakadashim without having to pass by the censoring high and not-so-high priests, since no other real data exists:

http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/revu/TI97/TI971122.html
[Scroll further down after the Israeli estimate to the commentaries by Faurisson and Nordling.]

2) DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS:

Here are the very few book studies you'll be able to find:

-- The only meticulous book-length study from the viewpoint of population statistics ever done is The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry by Walter Sanning (1983). Sanning uses Jewish originated data and estimates at 3.500.000 the total number of Jews in the German sphere of influence for the duration of the War, and at 2.400.000 the number of Jews alive at the end of the War in the countries previously occupied by Germany (with the exclusion of the USSR). His conclusions are confirmed by Carl Nordling -- a Finnish demographer, applying statistical inference to samples of known individual histories -- who places the total of Jewish victims of the concentration camps at between 300.000 and 600.000 (see articles by Nordling below).

-- For your reference, an anthology titled Dimension des Völkermords was edited in 1991 for the Institut für Zeitgeschichte by Wolfgang Benz, obviously as an attempt to fill the obvious vacuum. It's a weak pot-pourri of recycled extermination allegations with no connecting rationale other than the 6 million necessary figure (even though Benz denies this).

-- You'll find an interesting comparison of those two books by Germar Rudolf, who doesn't exactly follow any of them, here (Rudolf was deported from the "land of the brave and the free" where he had taken refuge, and is currently in jail in Germany for crimethought):

http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndstats.html

-- I also found convincing Richard Korherr and his Reports by Stephen Challen (1993), a translation of, and commentary on, the secret reports sent by Richard Korherr (who had the post of "Inspector of Statistics for the Reichsfuehrer-SS") to Himmler on the Jewish deportations. Challen reaches the following figures: 1.200.000 Jews dead for the whole of Europe during the War, 450.000 of them in parts of European Russia not occupied by the Germans, and 750.000 in the area of German direct or indirect responsibility. According to him, out of 2.300.000 deported Jews, 360.000 died, and a total of 200.000 of those died in the concentration camps. He considers the Jewish losses "heavy", but in proportion to the German or Soviet ones, and no more than about 20 % of what is usually believed.

A few more references:

'The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry': An Exchange
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p367_Rubenstein.html

Critique of John S. Conway's Review of Walter Sanning's Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, From The International History Review, August, 1985
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p375_Desjardins.html

John S. Conway's review previously criticised (quoted)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p379_Conway.html

How Many Jews Were Eliminated by the Nazis?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p-61_Hankins.html

3) STATISTICAL INFERENCE BASED ON RELEVANT SAMPLES:

The Jewish Establishment under Nazi-Threat and Domination 1938-1945
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p195_Nordling.html

How Many Jews Died in the German Concentration Camps?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p335_Nordling.html
____________________________

And that's goddbye for now, Elli, for your messages as well as mine, by design or accident, have begun to disappear from view. I hope mine may have been of some use to you folks still under the spell.

41. What is science for?

Comment #182632 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 5:22 pm

The esteemed professors on the possibility / desirability of human eugenic breeding (08:00):

Prof. Sulston: "I think it's a mistake to mix it up too much with the Holocaust, because that was, ah, eugenic slaughter of grown human beings."

Prof. Dawkins: "Yes of course it was [...]."

So here is, at last, a new attempt at defining the magic word, other than simply voiding it of any semantic meaning. But odd news, nevertheless. I thought the meaning up to now was more or less the following:

The "Holocaust": The vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate an entire race -- naturally including the zygotes, embryos and phoetuses, as well as the children and the grown-ups -- in the hope future historians would be at a loss to determine what had happened to it. And naturally, with no procedural 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 came up with mass execution by steam, electrocution, non-toxic Diesel exhaust, Zyklon B insecticide etc., and left not the slightest remaining -- or at least accessible to examination -- vestige of such a carnage in any of its precisely located alleged sites. And, of course, leaving survivors galore from such alleged "extermination centers" as Auschwitz to exhuberatingly manifest themselves everywhere more than 60 years later.

Well, maybe we should try yet another definition, one that may predict how all those marvelous humanities and post-humanities will look at the silly foibles of our times. Maybe the concept will be best understood thus:

The "Holocaust": One of the greatest hoaxes in human history, and one of the ways found out by reputedly wise old professors, in the 20th and early 21th centuries, to set themselves as the laughing-stock of the future, a great reminder of the terrible enduring power of totalitarian war propaganda over the feeble human mind.
____________________________

And, may I add in rememberance of Prof. Dawkins's comment that first made me write a comment on this forum, also a reminder that the true liars are the ones who avoid confrontation and know the only way they can get away with their lies is shuting off the opposition.

Religion: plus ça change...

42. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #182583 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Said MaxD:

Maybe you will be right about the gas chamber business, but I fucking doubt it.

Well, regardless of your opinion on the authenticity of the gas chambers shamelessly exhibited to the tourists and used to indoctrinate and instill guilt / self-hate in non-Jewish children from all over the World, do you think the allegedly planned industrial genocide that rests on their existence is an unimportant matter we should not concern ourselves with?!

It seems to me that large massacres such as the ones at Liepaja / Liebau (in Latvia) or Mizocz (in Ukraine), did in fact happen. Probably the one at Baby Yar (near Kiev) too, though not by a long shot involving the ridiculous figures claimed by the Soviets. And in many of those cases there were unlawful armed "resistance" events preceding the killings (certainly in both the Mizocz and Baby Yar cases) [1].

But those tragic events look more like the killing rampage by, say, the US in the Philippines from 1895 to 1900, than the unique, incomparable, indeed greatest crime in history that Jews require the rest of the world to recognise in order to justify their occupation of Palestine, in reality based on nothing but their alleged racial and religious uniquely "chosen" status.

Don't you think there is a difference between the alleged massive chain-gassings at Auschwitz and, say, the killing rampage at My Lay?

You seem to think that no gas chambers would exculpates the Germans of WWII who participated in the inhuman treatment of their jewish prisoners. I'm not sure how that is.

Some people went through both the Allied and the German camps. They seem to believe the Allied camps were the worst. Of course, they mean the normal regime of the camps, not the very unusual catastrophic conditions of late 1944 and 1945.

Take Margarete Buber-Neumann, a German Jewess who was in a Soviet camp from 1937 to 1940 (it didn't get any better after Stalin turned into an Allied angel, nor must it have been much worse than the murderous camps of the Western Allies from late 1944 to 1947), and then in Ravensbrück from 1940 to 1945:

http://www.ihr.org/books/hoggan/07.html

Quote from "The Myth of the Six Million" by the American revisionist historian David Hoggan:

Margarete Buber, Under Two Dictators, (London, 1950), presented the memoirs of a German-Jewish woman who was sent to the German concentration camp at Ravensbrück in August, 1940, after spending several years in the brutal and primitive conditions of a Russian concentration camp. She was considered to be too dangerous to be given her freedom in Germany, and she noted that she was the only Jewish person in her contingent of deportees from Russia who was not released forthwith by the Gestapo. She found that conditions in Ravensbrück presented a striking contrast to the filth, disorder, and starvation of her Russian camp.

German concentration camps in August 1940 were few and far between, and the number of prisoners was small in contrast to the vast camps of the Soviets. The number of inmates in all German camps at the outbreak of war in September 1939 has been previously cited at 21,300. Most of these inmates were the usual types of criminals, and there was only a small percentage of Jewish people. After one year of war, the total concentration camp population was still less than 40,000 in contrast to the many millions detained in the USSR camps.

The camp the heroine entered at Ravensbrück was immaculately clean with spacious lawns and flower beds. Regular baths, and a change of linen every week seemed sheer luxury after her earlier experiences. At a first meal consisting of white bread, sausage, margarine and sweet porridge with dried fruit, the heroine could not resist asking her neighbor at table if August 3, 1940, was some sort of holiday or special occasion. Her neighbor was quite blank, and the heroine proceeded to ask if the food was always so good. The neighbor replied in the affirmative, but she wondered why anyone should be so pleased with it. The heroine did not attempt an explanation. She also considered her barracks at Ravensbrück a palace compared to her crowded mud hut in the Soviet camp. Her first Sunday meal of goulash, red cabbage, and potatoes was a veritable feast. The heroine spent many years at Ravensbrück. The camp was crowded by 1943. Some of the old cleanliness was lost, and many flowers were trampled down. This was a consequence of the never-ending war. Prisoners from Auschwitz and other camps poured in toward the end of the war. The heroine noted that the Auschwitz inmates arrived "half-starved and exhausted" early in 1945. It should be recalled that tens of thousands of eastern German refugees literally died of starvation during this same period.

All postal communication between the Ravensbrück inmates and the outside world ceased in January, 1945, and confusion reigned. At last the end came, the German guards fled, and the heroine was released. She had witnessed the progressive deterioration of conditions at the camp over a long period. Corporal punishment for major offenses had been introduced after her arrival, and since the winter of 1941-1942, she had heard the usual malicious rumors that gas executions were being practiced in some cases.

A British edition of "Under Two Dictators: Prisoner of Stalin and Hitler" is currently in print.

Or why you think that anyone hates the Germans now, or thinks of them as evil.

Well, I think I understand at least the relationship between Jews and Germans. Every master loves his well-behaved slave, and everyone who has gone through what Germany went during the 20th century must take a long time to recover. What country do you think has been jailing brave free individuals like Ernst Zundel or Germar Rudolf, who oppose the "Holocaust" viselike grip, while giving Israel nuclear-capable submarines? Hint: not Lichtenstein.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/964343.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm

No wonder the Jews nowadays love their love-hate relation to Germany. It's the most profitable business conceivable. And, of course, no wonder the German leaders love to keep their jobs as "enlightened leaders" of their unhinged nation by going to the Knesset on their knees and doing their best to babble apologies for everything and more in Hebrew, in order to be spat upon by those Jewish deputies that don't think Germans have yet done enough for the Jewish cause in Palestine. And beyond that by pressuring the European Union -- and therefore my own country that lived under censorship for more than 40 years! -- to impose on the peoples of Europe the Jewish censorship their masters have the chutzpah to demand from the whole World!

I mean do caucasian americans hate themselves over what happened to the Native Americans? No I don't think so. It is a legitimate part of our countries history though and needs to be faced squarely.

And how, if you please, should Americans react to hypothetical laws making it criminal to doubt the genocidal smallpox infected blankets story, or to deny an alleged "extermination" of the native American Indians by arguing in terms of their 15th century population, the natural supremacy of a technologically more advanced invasive culture, and the ensuing demographic inability of the native birth-rate to cope with the incoming waves of the colonisation?

If you take a stroll in any American city of those regions that were the most populated before the coming of the Europeans (say Central America or the west coast of South America), all you have to do to understand "where have all the Indians gone" is to look at the faces you'll meet in the streets. Should we forbid or get hysterical at any "racist" comments about that fact, in order not to deny the "infected blankets" extermination story? [2]
_____________________________________

[1] Note that I'm not justifying reprisal killings and that sort of thing, only pointing out how such things happen during savage wars. They certainly don't require any secret genocidal plans such as the alleged "Final Solution" (the word territorial used at the Wansee conference is, of course, always left out by the exterminationists who, of course, have no axe to grind).

[2] Yes, there is one of those stories for British America, another one for Spanish America, a third one for Brazil and so on. Apparently there wouldn't have been any damaging effects from the new diseases if it hadn't been for the "blanket final solution" secretly planned in London, Amsterdam, Madrid and Lisbon. And of course, I guess the Wounded Knee photos prove the whole genocidal conspiracy...

43. What is science for?

Comment #182520 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 10:20 am

The esteemed professors on the possibility / desirability of human eugenic breeding (08:00):

Prof. Sulston: "I think it's a mistake to mix it up too much with the Holocaust, because that was, ah, eugenic slaughter of grown human beings."

Prof. Dawkins: "Yes of course it was [...]."

So here is, at last, a new attempt at defining the magic word, other than simply voiding it of any semantic meaning. But odd news, nevertheless. I thought the meaning up to now was more or less the following:

The "Holocaust": The vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate an entire race -- naturally including the zygotes, embryos and phoetuses, as well as the children and the grown-ups -- in the hope future historians would be at a loss to determine what had happened to it. And naturally, with no procedural 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 came up with mass execution by steam, electrocution, non-toxic Diesel exhaust, Zyklon B insecticide etc., and left not the slightest remaining -- or at least accessible to examination -- vestige of such a carnage in any of its precisely located alleged sites. And, of course, leaving survivors galore from such alleged "extermination centers" as Auschwitz to exhuberatingly manifest themselves everywhere more than 60 years later.

Well, maybe we should try yet another definition, one that may well translate how all those marvelous humanities and post-humanities will look at the silly foibles of our times. Maybe the concept will be best understood thus:

The "Holocaust": One of the greatest hoaxes in human history, and one of the ways reputedly wise old professors, in the 20th and early 21th centuries, found out to set themselves as the laughing-stock of the future, a great reminder of the terrible enduring power of totalitarian war propaganda over the feeble human mind.

44. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #182418 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 4:04 am

Said Gr8hands,

What I noticed was that he won't address my points.

How about addressing everybody's point since 1945 (in fact since earlier than that, earlier even than the alleged date of the beginning of the gassings!):

G-A-S C-H-A-M-B-E-R-S, ever heard?

Or is it simply "anything goes" when the victim is German, i.e. non-Jewish?

Now, what kind of truth, of honour, of objective inquiry, of scientific spirit, of loyal debate, of fair judgement is that?

We may start, for instance, with the terrible Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg gas chamber:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4976

Quote:
____________________________

"The construction works went on for about 14 days. When Dipl.-Ing. Dörbeck and I realised what was being built, we went to the political officer and told him that we refused to undertake any further work. The political officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Kolowantienkow, spoke - often heatedly - with Dörbeck for about fifteen minutes in Russian. Dörbeck later told me that the political officer had said that we would be summarily shot if we ceased to do any further work or let slip one word about it. The political officer said furthermore that we were receiving good rations (which was true) and that he - Dörbeck - would later be required to explain the installation to groups of Soviet visitors. The political officer also said that we would be well-treated in the future and receive good rations. As we were unable to prevent the construction of the installation, it seemed to make sense to us that we should continue the work and, in this way, learn what was being made there.

"After completion, at about the end of October 1945, Dipl.-Ing. Dörbeck was brought before the political officer alone and received precise instructions about the explanations he was to give to Soviet groups of visitors. He had to say the following: This installation, which was built by the Nazis, served to kill [Vernichtung] Jews and Soviet officer prisoners. Each day some 200 people were gassed and about twenty-five were shot. This went on from 1943 till 1945 (April).

"From about December 1945 until the end of 1947 an average of two tours a week, each consisting of some thirty to forty Soviet men, mostly soldiers and people from the GPU, and women, were escorted by Dörbeck round the installation. There were often officers amongst them who quite openly expressed doubts about the age of the installation because they saw that the concrete was new, that there were no bullet holes from the executions in the concrete wall and that the blood stains (red paint) were very meagre and unconvincing."
____________________________

Note that the building faked as a gas chamber by the Soviets was later blown up by the East Germans, and the ruins since then, indeed up to this day, are presented at the Memorial Site as a "gas chamber, disguised as a shower room, used to kill prisoners":

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/sachsenhausen/ConcentrationCamp/GasChamber.html

Then we may proceed to Auschwitz via Dachau. Is that okay with you? The interesting thing about Dachau is the presence of a gas chamber, complete with faked showers, that "was never put to use," according to the local museum information on display. Now, I wonder why would that be? And why would the Germans leave the brand new gas chamber that was never put to use in its pristine form for the Americans to take it over and show it to the World?

Remember it was not the Soviets who liberated Dachau, so how come we have a gas chamber there too? Could it be that the Western Allies were every bit as capable of faking evidence as the Soviets were? Hint:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p261_Leuchter.html

[Find within page: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Compiled by Robert Faurisson II. Dachau]

Quote:
____________________________

Common Sense (New Jersey, USA), 1 June 1962, p. 2, republished from Combat, London, England, "The False Gas Chamber":

"The camp had to have a gas chamber, so, since one did not exist, it was decided to pretend that the shower bath had been one. Capt Strauss (U.S. Army) and his prisoners got to work on it. Previously it had flag stones to the height of about four feet. Similar flag stones in the drying room next door were taken out and put above those in the shower bath, and a new lower ceiling was created at the top of this second row of flag stones with iron funnels in it (the inlets for the gas)."
____________________________

I repeat: what kind of truth, of honour, of objective inquiry, of scientific spirit, of loyal debate, of fair judgement is that?

Then on to the "rebuilt" Auschwitz Main Camp gas chamber they show to the chidren they force to go there in order to have their delicate minds washed with the special Rein Jüdisches Fett soap for infantile brains:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3300819.ece

And on to the Birkenau epicenter of the "Holocaust" and the, oops... no-holes that should have been there but are not, because apparently the Nazis -- as David Irving judiciously put it, when he summarised Van Pelt's theory -- "in the last frantic days of the camp, when they were in a blue funk, would have gone around with buckets of cement filling the holes that they were going to dynamite." See:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n5p33_Renk.html

Now, given the falsified evidence and the lopsided record of the post-war show-trials-- and, well yes, the judicial prohibition and punishment of any further investigations by the outlawed revisionist side! -- wouldn't it be fair to say that both the strict physical possibility and the moral obligation to objectively investigate beyond doubt those (non-existent!) holes and prove their case would rest with the exterminationist side of this extraordinarily one-sided "debate," i.e. with your side rather than mine?

Ah yes. I forgot, sorry... The word "Holocaust" -- never mind what it means -- has "already been proved" over and over and over, because there are many, many, many eyewitnesses, and lots, and lots, and lots of evidence...

Yeah. sure. That's what I call the "Shermer standard of proof" or "proof of a nonsense word by nonsensical word repetition." But the whole thing still looks like a silly, silly, silly lie to me.

And I'm still all ears. I'm still waiting to hear the news. Like, say, "oh, come on, the "Holocaust" word has nothing to do with any gas chamber slaughterhouses..." [!!!]

45. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #182417 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 4:01 am

Said MaxD,

He shows his ignorance by appearing to be convinced the Holocaust was only about jews -- ignoring how many jehovah's witnesses were murdered (he can ask them to provide proof, which they have no problem supplying);

Couple of quick references:

http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/felderer.html
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/13felderer.html

Quote: "Felderer's research put him on a collision course with the sect; the leadership in New York warned members that they were not allowed to speak to him. In a subsequent Yearbook published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, they conceded that only 203 people were killed during the war. (18-4226 to 4229; 4645)"

"Killed," of course, means actually "dead," much from the same motives other internees died, and not exactly "executed." Oh, and by the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_the_Holocaust

Quote [*]: "The religion's doctrine of political neutrality has led to the jailing of Witnesses who refused conscription (for example in Britain during World War II and afterwards during the period of compulsory national service). During the world wars, Jehovah's Witnesses were also targeted in the United States, Canada and many other countries because they refused to serve in the military or help with war efforts. In Canada, Jehovah's Witnesses were interned in camps along with political dissidents and people of Japanese and Chinese descent."

the homosexuals (his so-called information is grossly in error);

Care to point out the errors?

the Gypsies,

Same.

Simply ignore him.

"Do as I desperately say, not as I desperately do" ?
___________________________

[*] I quote the Wikipedia, not because I trust it on controvesial matters such as the "Holocaust," but because the quote is reasonably consensual and spares me the task of looking elsewhere.

46. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #182099 by ASMarques on May 19, 2008 at 8:14 am

MaxD:

No I don't see what you mean.

G-A-S C-H-A-M-B-E-R-S: ever heard?

MaxD, I hate leaving anyone in the dark, and I have nothing against you, but I must go. Read my long series of posts, if you feel they may be useful to you (click "Other Comments by ASMarques"). Good luck.

47. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #181997 by ASMarques on May 19, 2008 at 4:54 am

Said: MaxDI

I am not speaking in any Newsspeak style. I am not lost in shifty definitions. [...] the Holocaust (extermination of the Jews, 4 to 6 million, homosexuals, gypsies, and slavick peoples of numbers I am not remembering)

See what I mean?

[If you still don't get it, I think you may as well give up. No problem with me. I certainly have better things to do than repeat myself. Anyway, thanks for providing me with a good example of what I've been saying. Others may profit from it and gain a little more understanding of the truly abysmal impact of totalitarian semantics on the human psyche.]

48. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #181779 by ASMarques on May 18, 2008 at 8:37 am

Said Baylis:

ASS Marques

[Baylis self quote] This is because those other douche-bags in the expelled camp are trying to propagate the myth that Darwinism led to the holocaust!

You've been trolling this site for weeks, so if you don't understand this reference, it is further evidence that your total obsession with your conspiracy theory is unhinging you.

Well, it would seem you meant those who confuse biological Darwinism and what is often referred to as Social Darwinism, but it didn't occur to me you might be referring to that "Expelled" movie. Sorry, I haven't been following and the title didn't even occur to me in the H hoax context you were talking about.

But I'm not so credulous as to believe the garbage that you've steeped yourself in for years, eh skid.

Do you really think vulgarity brings the water to your mill? Suit yourself: each one, his own style. Just tell me what is it exactly that you "don't believe," and I'll throw in a few slow motion explanations more, if you wish.

49. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #181701 by ASMarques on May 18, 2008 at 1:59 am

Said MaxD:

What a gross misrepresentation of the Shermer's chapter on Holocaust denial in Why People Believe Strange things. He has pegged your argument thus far down perfectly. "No holes, no Holocaust." You seem to be neglecting the fact that there are vast amounts of other evidence that points to a more or less systematic attempt to eradict European Jewry.

Every revisionist or denier I have heard of will readily agree with your last period's assumption!

Yes, of course the Germans tried to eradicate (i.e. expel, get rid of, first by emigration, later on, as the war advanced, by savage means much like those employed by the Allies at the same time and even after the war, as well as by Israel in 1948, and for much the same purposes).

But what has that to do with the "Holocaust"? The "Holocaust" is not supposed to be an attempted "eradication of Jewry." It's supposed to be an attempted extermination of the Jews.

Again I must insist that it becomes impossible to discuss anything at all if we constantly change the meaning of words. If we are to discuss the "Holocaust" as an alleged historical fact we must understand the meaning of the word and not change it at every turn. The "Holocaust" is assumed to be a relatively precise set of events consisting in an attempted extermination of the Jews, resulting in approximately 6 million of them being murdered, mainly in the alleged German homicidal gas chambers.

Am I correct in believing you are familiar with this? If you agree -- as I think you will -- I suggest you do the following: each time you write the H word, immediately pin it down by forcing yourself to write the parenthesized meaning next to it, like this: "the Holocaust (extermination, gas chambers, approx. 6 million Jews)."

That way you'll be able to actually discuss a meaningful concept instead of an empty one.

Let me try to explain to you how your Newspeak-style usage of the word short-circuits your brain and impeaches your understanding of what you yourself are saying:

1) The "Holocaust," as an (usually capitalised) proper noun does not designate simply "a sacrifice consumed by fire," or "ill-will towards the Jews," or "a Jew Hitler secretly gassed in his private kitchen in Munich in 1932," or "racial laws against the Jews similar to contemporaneous US laws against the blacks," or "internment of the Jews in wartime," or "the shooting of one's Jewish grandfather in Russia," or "mass killings of Jewish partisans in Russia," or "some massacres of non-combatant Jews in some European places."

2) The "Holocaust" we talk about is an attempted extermination of the Jews, resulting in approximately 6 million of them being murdered, mainly in German homicidal gas chambers under industrial chain-murder conditions. Obviously the mass murder in cold blood in the prodigious gas chambers is an essential part of the libel, one that gives it an unique meaning unparalleled by any other wartime atrocity, indeed unparalleled in the whole history of mankind, as we are reminded at breakfast, lunch and dinner by the media concert. Obviously, it should be perfectly legitimate to investigate whether this peculiar claim of uniqueness -- regardless of other unhappy events, unfortunately very common in wartime and very liberally distributed among numerous classes of victims, that may have befell the Jews -- is true or false, and thus should or should not confer upon the Jews the unique status of victimisation they demand from the rest of the suffering world.

3) The prodigious gas chambers, after many unexpected jumps, finally settled down, not in the many different locations falsely claimed for them (that particular falsehood is now practically consensual, even though rarely mentioned by exterminationists other than sotto voce) in show-trial after show-trial since 1945, but in the large extermination camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau, also known as "the factory of death." And within that "factory of death," in the alleged gas chamber of Crematory II (always referred to by the Germans as "a morgue," allegedly for clever deceiving purposes). The importance of this mother of all (nearly vanished) gas chambers is such that "Holocaust scholar" Robert Van Pelt calls it the "Epicenter of the Holocaust."

4) Now, all the positive evidence (i.e. the eyewitnesses' claims as to what occurred there, in spite of the much more powerful negative evidence resulting from the absence of significant cyanide traces) concurs in one crucial point: that the procedure adopted involved the introduction of Zyklon B pellets through holes in the reinforced concrete roof.

5) The roof still exists, and Van Pelt agrees with the revisionists that no holes can be detected there.

6) If no holes, then no mother of all (nearly vanished) gas chambers.

7) If no mother of all (nearly vanished) gas chambers, then the gas chambers vanish.

8) If the gas chambers vanish, the false witnesses should shut up, feel ashamed of themselves, and get off the collective goy back, because the gigantic lie that by now should be obvious to any thinking person of good will -- Germans are no less deserving of good will than Jews are -- will have become untenable to all except the most stupid of the "Holocaust" camp followers.

Given the above, how can you say that "No holes, no Holocaust" is a misrepresentation of the truth, or that the non-existence of the holes is but an insignificant fact of no consequence to the terrible "Holocaust" libel imposed on the Germans, and indeed on the rest of mankind who is deemed to have looked the other way while the greatest crime in history was being committed, if that libel is to be anything other than an open concept devoid of form and meaning?

I'm all ears, but please don't tell me simply "oh, there are many, many, many, ..., many eyewitnesses to the Holocaust, so how can the Holocaust possibly be anything but true."

I know that. Been there, heard the same thousands of times.

But -- can you imagine this! -- I don't believe in Jews simply because they are Jews. I hold them to the same standards of consistency I hold everybody else -- I want to see the evidence.

Alas, no evidence is coming my way. Just afflicted cries of indignation.

Not at all convincing up to now. I hope you don't let me down and finally send some real evidence of the large elephant in the middle of the room that I cannot manage to see.

But no. Not possible. Not today. Today it's simply "lots and lots and lots of guaranteed evidence" but... still no evidence sent.

Shermer does not engage in any ad homs against the deniers, though he is curious about the groups that do it.

Wrong. He unhesitatingly attributes the wrong motivations and political convictions all the time to people he obviously has only very limited information about. That's well within the boundaries of ad hominem argument. And hardly surprising it is, since he has very little to say about the facts themselves, other than repeat his idiotic leitmotiv of "convergent evidence," which in fact boils down to the almost proverbial (but false) "plenty of reliable eyewitness testimony."

Believe me, anyone who has been following the "Holocaust" controversy knows revisionists cover practically the whole spectrum of political ideology. Some of them are entirely apolitical, others are civil or political libertarians, they come from the right, center and left, you find among them fascists, communists, liberals, conservatives, anarchists etc. The one thing that strikes me as original relative to many other diverse human groups seems to be an unusually high degree of aversion to censorship and enforced conformity, even among those with the most far-right or far-left ideas. Not a bad collective trait, I would say.

It is deeply curious that most have an anti-semitic ax to grind.

Let me direct your attention to the way your conditioned mind -- no offence intended, but no better words to describe it -- leads you to unwarranted conclusions.

Anti-semitism is a cheap accusation. It's supposed to protect Jews from any criticism, by relegating the "anti-semite" and what he is saying to a sort of dark region of naive 19th century pseudo-science and racialist bigotry, whereas "anti-Jewish" -- even if not particularly accurate in all cases -- is a much better expression, no worse than "anti-Palestinian" or "anti-German."

Assuming, therefore, that by the Newspeak word "anti-semitic" what you really mean is anti-Jewish, why would that be "deeply curious" or even "curious" at all?

It shouldn't be "curious" because it's an obvious consequence of critical thinking applied to what is in fact a largely (though not uniquely) Jewish lie. It's the Jews who seem obsessed with their "Holocaust," and they're the ones demanding universal censorship on the critical examination of the subject. If you pay any attention to the media and the "Jewish lobbies" you'll hear the constant wailing cacophony intermingled with the noise about eternal monetary reparations.

Let me therefore answer you in this way: what you're saying is the exact equivalent of someone defensive of Christianity accusing someone else of being "anti-Christian" for rejecting the "convergence of evidence" for the Christian vision of history -- you know, eyewitnesses to miraculous events, general agreement among historians, etc...

I won't even go into the idiotic "convergence of evidence" allegedly in favour of the Intelligent Design cliché. The creationist "convergence of evidence" style Shermer uses, per se, without any real evidence annexed or forthcoming, other than the "many witnesses" and "moral certainty" claims, is but the lone resource of the nearly resourceless.

Of course someone intent on debunking Christianity will be accused of being anti-Christian!

But that doesn't mean he must be a personal enemy of the poor bastards entrapped in the worst form of the Christian historical lie and corrupted by it, or wish he could burn them at the stake. On the contrary, he may wish he could liberate them from their own shortsightedness and help them become fully rational human beings.

And of course someone exposing the third biggest Jewish hoax ever devised will be accused of being anti-Jewish!

But is it his fault if the hoax simultaneously provides the ethno-religious Jewish state of Israel with its founding myth and prodigious amounts of German and US taxpayer money, and Jews in general with alleged grounds for ubiquitous supremacism among the nations and a claimed innate right to protective censorship against their critics?

How could it be otherwise? Of course I am anti-Jewish in the same sense I am anti-Christian, anti-Marxist, anti-thief, anti-censor etc. But it doesn't mean at all that I am anti-semitic or anything like that. On the contrary, I wish Jews would be able to abandon their Jewishness, i.e. their claim to be a special tribe -- "chosen" is the religiously consecrated word they themselves use -- with uniquely special rights among the human tribes.

Shouldn't we then rather say that it's the "Holocaust"-peddling Jews that seem to have an anti-goy axe to grind, when they use the hoax to extract money from the goyim and achieve power over such innocent victims as the (very largely semitic, unlike many of the invading Jews) Palestinians?

While the rest of the historic community, the part that is more or less secular and neutral on Jews finds the evidence compelling in favor of a Holocaust that not only targeted Jews, but homosexuals, gypsies and slavic folk.

You make the common mistake of historical anachronism. The general situation of sexual and racial minorities in the world of our days is vastly different from the one in the world of the mid-20th century. There were homosexuals in, as well as out, of jail in a lot of places. Homosexuals who refused the closet could be, and often were, arrested and punished for it in many European countries.

The same happened to Gypsies. In pre-war France, for instance, Gypsies were often interned under anti-vagrancy laws. Germany did much the same on a larger scale during wartime. Gypsies were interned but they were not perceived as enemies and not subjected to forced labour as Jews generally were.

I don't think it will be news to you that the Allies also interned some ethnic minorities they were uncomfortable with -- such as the Volga Germans or the American Nisei -- so the situation in Germany was not all that different, unless you really believe they were gassing the said minorities, which is as idiotic a pretence as the larger Jewish "Holocaust" itself.

And, of course, given the strong sexual connotations of the stories about the treatment of homosexuals in the camps -- always nice to sell sensational books -- we should take them with a grain of salt. I'm sorry to say that reading about "eyewitnesses who tell of homosexuals being tortured to death by tickling, by having their testicles immersed alternately into hot and icy water, by having a broomstick pushed into their anus" by the usually disciplined SS guards, doesn't contribute to turn me into an automatic believer in "eyewitnesses." (see Heinz Heger, The Men with the Pink Triangle, Alyson, Boston 1980, p. 12, a memoir of an Austrian who spent six years in Sachsenhausen and Flossenburg, surviving as a lover of camp kapos, and ultimately as a kapo himself).

Back to the larger non-lethal tickling.

I tried to explain elsewhere the obvious reasons why the "historic community" goes along with the hoax. I'll try a quick resumé again:

1) Academic historians in general (a historian who does not specialise in the "Holocaust" is no better equipped to understand why the "Holocaust" is a hoax than anybody else is):

-- Ignorance (they may not know and not care).
-- Naïveté (historians are not hoax proof)
-- Prudence (debunking the myth is not a career booster).
-- Fear (they may fear losing their jobs, being assaulted, judicially prosecuted etc.).

2) Academic historians who specialize in the "Holocaust" itself are just a handful. So, by "historians" we mean here both the handful of academics and anyone who writes on, and claims extensive knowledge of, the "Holocaust":

-- Tribalism (they may be Jews unable to professionally detribalise) [1]
-- Devotion (they may be "Holocaust" cultists unable to reason) [2]
-- Greed (they may find the platform lucrative and not too crowded)
-- Incompetence (they may be exceptionally stupid)
-- Fear (they may fear losing their jobs, being assaulted, judicially prosecuted etc.).
-- Impotence (they may be demoralised, reduced to indigence or imprisoned)
______________

[1] Compare with patriotically motivated historians who glorify their own country's history and pay deficient attention to the historical record.

[2] Compare with religiously motivated historians who believe in the miracles of their own religions and have a deficient understanding of History itself.

I'm not a historian, but from what I understand it works much like any other historical science.

You have but little understanding of what goes on around the "Holocaust" hoax. Just try to stop your conditioned response for a moment and think about what you have just said.

Don't you know "Holocaust" revisionism is the only historical subject on which the imposition of universal censorship has ever been required by a sovereign state (Israel) in the General Assembly of the UN?

How can anyone possess at least some knowledge of the systematic persecution and censorship involving "Holocaust" revisionism -- as I presume you do -- and still think "it works much like any other historical science" (to use your words)?!

What other ordinary truths are you able to perceive? That black is white and white is black?!

And since the Holocaust is widely accepted as a historical fact by the establishment after as many years as have passed lends some credibility to the view that it happened.

Why? Christianity is much older and enjoys even wider acceptance. Does that mean Jesus Christ walked on water, was resurrected from the dead and rose to heaven? Of course not. Jesus Christ is a myth, and so is the alleged gassing of the Jews in order to exterminate them.

Proving otherwise is going to be hard work.

Not at all. Exactly as for my previous example, Christianity, proving the shallowness of its tenets to intelligent and well informed persons is not hard work at all.

The hard work is proving it to the unwashed and/or brainwashed true believers under the spell, making them see the two natures of their beliefs, one for "everyday history," the other for "sacred history," mutually incompatible in our commonly recognised space of rationality.

In that sense and no other, you're quite right. It's hard work indeed.

And you cannot adopt a conspiracy theorist's approach of only taking the data that supports your own thesis while ignoring the rest.

It's exactly the other way around:

1) The data massively and decisively supports denial of the sacred history (for instance: [no holes] ==> [no gas chamber] ==> [the eyewitnesses are false witnesses]).

2) The "conspiracy theorists" are the "Holocaust" peddlers. How amazing that not a single brainwashed observer seems able to see this, even when asked to concentrate on the exactitude of the words he uses.

Please forget what you think you know by faith alone, and tell me how we should classify those who propose the following (non-conspiratorial?!) theory called THE HOLOCAUST, under the premise that it is so absolutely obvious it doesn't even need detailed forensic analysis of the unique prodigious mass murder weapons:

THE HOLOCAUST: "The vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate an entire race -- or even better, entire races -- in the hope future historians would be at a loss to determine what had happened to it -- or 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 came up with mass execution by steam, electrocution, non-toxic Diesel exhaust, Zyklon B insecticide etc., and left not the slightest remaining vestige of such a carnificine in any of its precisely located alleged sites. And, of course, survivors galore from such alleged "extermination camps" as Auschwitz manifesting themselves everywhere more than 60 years later."

Should we classify the proponents of such a theory as:

1) Realists with robust minds and solid common sense?
2) Scientists anxious to test their well-founded theories?
3) Spiritual Jews following their nutty ages-old tradition?
4) Brainwashed parrots able to achieve repetition but hardly any critical thinking?
5) Complete idiots unconnected with the real world?

I confess my hesitation over three of the options.

50. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #181700 by ASMarques on May 18, 2008 at 1:56 am

Said alan baylis:

The written history of the events known as the holocaust is vast.

Is that an argument you would also accept for other religions, regardless of the verisimilitude and the consistency of the said written histories?...

The documentary evidence that converges to show that the holocaust happened is also vast.

Can I have one piece of the documentary evidence, please? Just to show you how shallow and ignorant your taking the vague and scarce appearances for the reality is?

The eyewitness accounts from various sides are legion.

Can I have one, please, from any side you choose? Just in order to let you see how little sense it makes?

(Yes, some victims survived. Even the Nazis couldn't kill them all).

Just to understand you: what does "some victims" in your parlance mean?

Does it mean "Wiesenthal, Wiesel and a few lucky friends"?

Or does it mean something more along the lines of "A few millions of them that time, ordinary mortality and the scarceness of close reliable control over the information during a half century didn't nevertheless manage to reduce to less than 900,000 by 1997 (according to AMCHA, The Coalition for Jewish Concerns)"?

See, for instance:
http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/19970901survivors.html

The sheer size of this historical resource lends itself to being selectively trawled for perceived mistakes and inconsistencies that could be used to support any number of lies and conspiracy theories. This is how holocaust deniers operate.

You mean the more the evidence, the harder to present a few teeny-weeny bits of it, just to embarrass the big bad denier?

Very odd indeed....

Well, how about forgetting the obvious elephants in the middle of the room, such as the very simple fact that the Jews have not been exterminated and the Auschwitz survivors are everywhere even after 60-odd years, and going after the smaller, easier things, like naming the gas chambers you believe in and the ones you don't?

That would be interesting. Do you, for instance, have any reason to prefer Auschwitz to Dachau as a gas chamber site?

After all, isn't Dachau the place where a ready-made gas chamber was built, complete with faked showers and all, and then quickly forgotten as soon as the Germans had the bright idea of taking hundreds of thousands of Jewish deportees that could have been disposed of in Bavaria from Western Europe to Poland to gas them there instead, and then compounding their forgetting by leaving the Dachau gas chamber intact and complete with the faked showers, instead of at least dismantling the sinister plumbing implements?

You don't seem to be having much success in prothletizing your lies and delusions here.

So what? Why should that be such a problem to you that you should feel it necessary to intervene?

I get the strong impression that most posters are ignoring you out of sheer contempt, whilst others say you should be just ignored as the troll you are. I am a bit wary of this strategy.

Could it be that your "strong impressions" are as informed and statistically sound as your "survivor" estimates?

And just why, if you please, would reacting in an entirely civil way to Dawkins's deficient manners (see my first comment to this site) be considered contemptible at all?

Could it be that the real message your left anterior cingulate cortex is sending you is more along the lines of "Ouch! No one seems to be able to produce a few miserable holes in the alleged "epicenter of the Holocaust" gas chamber's roof!"...

This is because those other douche-bags in the expelled camp are trying to propagate the myth that Darwinism led to the holocaust!

Sorry, I didn't get that one. Whom do you refer to as the "expelled camp"? As far as I know no revisionist believes millions of "survivors" were expelled, if that's what you mean. Most of them were indeed alive under German or Soviet rule (many of them interned), and many of the displaced left Europe or went within Europe from one place to another afterwards, but the emigrating ones, during the 30s, were not exactly "expelled," though you might say they were "helped on their way," both by the Nazis and the Zionists...

Although I think it is right to challenge your lies anyway, I have wondered what twisted propaganda they may have attempted if a holocaust denier had been allowed to post on rd/net unchallenged.

What in heaven is "rd.net"?! And who's "they"? What are you dreaming about? I've never heard about it and Google doesn't bring in any news. Are you by any chance implying more dark conspiracies from the terrible Sages of Revisionism?

However, I think most people here understand very well what the convergence of evidence shows.

Or maybe they don't and that's why they don't even dare bringing it in...

Maybe, after all, even the local "Holocaust" peddlers -- used as they are to refuting the anti-evolution and other similarly credulous idiocies -- will be able to recognise that myths born in environments that share a commonly enforced conformity of belief will tend to shape in a non-random "convergence of lies & delusions" profitable to the intervening parties...

How in heaven can anyone claim "convergent evidence" if any "divergent evidence" is outlawed and censored, and those proposing it practically excluded from the pale of intelligible non-insulting dialogue, indeed of ordinary human rights protection? Have you ever tried to investigate the position of human rights associations like Amnesty International relative to scandalous cases such as Ernst Zundel's or Germar Rudolf's? I'll tell you what they think, believe it or not: they think depriving "Holocaust" debunkers of ordinary human rights that even child murderers and rapists enjoy is an excellent idea...

Arresting, deporting and jailing the men responsible for this and this, according to the express wishes of the Jewish state and the poor innocent, powerless, Jewish lobbies in three different countries? And then prosecuting and jailing their defence lawyers who dared to quote their views defensively in court? What sort of convergence is that, other than the convergence of anti-heretical fanatical conformity with whatever Jewish power wishes?

They are just not buying the rubbish you post. They would also, I imagine, realize full well what motivates holocaust deniers.

Here we go. If you cannot shoot the message, shoot the messenger instead. If the "Holocaust" is but a sinister tissue of lies, blame the debunker's bad character and hidden motives, instead of contesting his debunking...

It is the same age old anti Semitism (which brought so much misery) coupled with the attempted rehabilitation of Nazism. A particularly toxic delusion by any standard!

And here we go. The "Holocaust" is true because if you deny it, you're an anti-semitic Nazi...

Speaking of religion, wouldn't you do better by trolling your garbage around the theist wingnut sites? After all, there are plenty of them and the folks there are already conditioned to believe in various loads of old rubbish. Although, I doubt the crap you have been spouting here would take even them in.

Well, most of them are enthusiastic followers of the "Holocaust" idiocy, starting with the Vatican itself and the crazy "Christian Zionists" intent on quickening the advent of their expected "rapture" by extending every possible support to their nuclear armed Jewish friends in the Middle East...

I assure you they're every bit as credulous as you yourself are.