Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Fadix]

Look Danny boy, Hilbergs book was written in 1985, after 20 years it has not still been debunked. You claim there are no evidences in it, yet! it is still considered as the bible regarding the subject, and no one even dared debunking it. If you think you can compare Rudolfs work with Hilbergs, you are dreaming in color. I can debunk Rudolf if you want, I already debunked Rassinier in my work regarding McCarthy when compared the so-called statistical analysis. Why am I not debunking Rudolf? Because it has been debunked countless of numbers of times. The Chemist Dr. Richard Green is one of the debunkers who placed Rudolf right in his place. The premise of Rudolf is wrong in the first place and if you really bothered reading “both sides” like you claim you won’t claim he is debunking the gas chambers. But again, have I talked about the gas chambers? No! I did not; you are yet again and again assuming my evidences when I still have not presented them. And no! you can not “debunk” every extermination methods like you claim, there is one that no denialist has ever even tried to “debunk.” If you really have researched the subject you would know which one it is. So Dan, which one it is? Can you tell me?

So let come to Hilberg again, Dan, STOP!!!! LYING!!!! I will only start posting Hilbergs evidences once you admit having NOT read the book. Why are you lying? What would that bring you Dan? You claim you do not consider it as evidences, there are hundreds of sources in it, from Germans, Russians etc… etc… etc… and yet you claim you do not consider it as evidence. Who are you trying to fool Dan? This is your only way of escape to divert the question. If you did read the book, go ahead just debunk one of his claims which you can not find on the web.

“Yet you were doing the same thing in the Race thread, weren't you? Heh, funny how the tables turn, isn't it?”

NO!!! RETURN in the race thread, I was telling you again and again that it was to you to prove the existence of something and not me to disprove its existence… I asked you countless numbers of times to present me any tools which will permit us to class people by races… I WAS asking you to prove and yet you were telling me why it should be you that have to prove it. Do you need a refresh memory Danny boy? So you are lying here.

“Maybe you should explain how you can prove that race doesn't exist then?”

I never claimed that I can prove, you are lying here. What I asked you is to prove race exist. You were just not able to do so.

“As you said, I cannot prove the non-existence of non-existing "evidence", can I? I repeat, I am not going to debunk a book. Post your claims and support them with Hilberg's evidence, and if it's relevant, I will debunk it. *I* am not the one avoiding posting evidence for the longest time. ”

First Admit you have not read the book, AFTER I will start quoting from the book not before.

[Darorinag]

after 25 years it has not still been debunked

Hilberg's The Destruction of European Jews debunked:

http://www.vho.org/dl/ENG/Giant.pdf

Username: visitor
Password: download

Try again.

it is still considered as the bible regarding the subject

And Simon "Nazi Hunter" Wiesenthal "we fake photos" Center is considered THE bible of photographs on the holocaust. Yet there were MANY (MANY!) photos proven to be fake and were promptly removed by them.

and no one even dared debunking it.

You seem to have read ALL revisionist material.... Yet you missed the one on Hilberg's book... Funny, isn't it?

If you think you can compare Rudolfs work with Hilbergs, you are dreaming in color.

Oh, now you're comparing the relative worth of books just like that? Have you read Rudolf's book? He doesn't go around presenting a political history of WWII. He goes right into the heart of the holocaust discussion and provides forensic evidence that proves that the gas chambers are a myth. You have not debunked it yet.

I already debunked Rassinier in my work regarding McCarthy when compared the so-called statistical analysis.

I have not seen it. Post the work on a website I guess, and I will take a look at it. I am not God and can't read your mind on what you have "debunked".. I wouldn't expect you to be able to debunk anything if you used Hilberg.

Why am I not debunking Rudolf? Because it has been debunked countless of numbers of times.

I am not asking you to debunk Rudolf. I never asked for that.

The Chemist Dr. Richard Green is one of the debunkers who placed Rudolf right in his place. The premise of Rudolf is wrong in the first place and if you really bothered reading “both sides” like you claim you won’t claim he is debunking the gas chambers.

"Dr." Richard Green debunked:

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html

And no! you can not “debunk” every extermination methods like you claim, there is one that no denialist has ever even tried to “debunk.” If you really have researched the subject you would know which one it is. So Dan, which one it is? Can you tell me?

As I said, I am not going to play your intimidation game of interrogation. If you can't hold a serious discussion, refrain from posting. I am replying to you in a very emotionally detached way. I am not afraid of your "evidences." You seem to be very angered by this. You have accused me time and again of lying about having read that book, despite my insistence that I've read it.

So let come to Hilberg again, Dan, STOP!!!! LYING!!!! I will only start posting Hilbergs evidences once you admit having NOT read the book.

OK case closed then. I have read the book. Now you are trying to find an excuse not to post it. Because you know there is no evidence. If there were any, and if you could prove your point, trust me, you wouldn't have held it for such a long time. Again, I challenge you to post it.

You claim you do not consider it as evidences, there are hundreds of sources in it, from Germans, Russians etc… etc… etc… and yet you claim you do not consider it as evidence.

I already said. Either scientific evidence, or none. Gas chambers CANNOT be proven, I repeat, CANNOT be proven by eyewitness accounts. And the documents have been proven to have been forged. Refer to the human soap case and the documents presented in support of it (and the confessions!) at the Nuremberg Trials.

Who are you trying to fool Dan? This is your only way of escape to divert the question. If you did read the book, go ahead just debunk one of his claims which you can not find on the web.

Again, intimidation tactics. Not gonna work. I am not diverting any question. I already told you I am not going to play your interrogation game. Go practise it elsewhere. I am not here to have a quiz to prove my knowledge on the holocaust issue, which is what you try to do in every discussion, even if the other side has proven their point. But I'm not going to attack you for it. I know you too well by now to attack you at this point. And like I said, I am not going to go on the web to search for all the stuff that's been posted from his book so that I'd debunk one of his claims not mentioned on the web. Because in the end, that's almost impossible, considering how vast the web is, and how easily you might come up with a google result and claim that I've taken it from there. I'm not going to spend my time posting pages of evidence against Hilberg's "claims" just so that you can disqualify it in a second, and you have a history of doing it (in more than one thread). And accuse me of trying to avoid answering. It doesn't matter. We both know that what you're asking me to do is something I refused to answer from the first minute. I never promised to talk about Hilberg's book. I am NOT talking about books. I am NOT discussing the content of any book. Probably no one knows Rudolf's book more than me, yet I am not asking you any questions about it, and I am not claiming that you haven't read it. I am not here to check your knowledge. I am here to hear your "proofs." If you can't get behind the quiz mentality, I suggest you stick to high school discussions.

RETURN in the race thread, I was telling you again and again that it was to you to prove the existence of something and not me to disprove its existence…

You claimed to have disproven the existence of races. Anyway.... I think I'm playing along and doing exactly what you want me to do in this thread - go off-topic... Nice try...

I asked you countless numbers of times to present me any tools which will permit us to class people by races…

Yet, when I didn't present any "proof" (ones that "qualified" in your eyes anyway), you claimed that your "proof" and my lack of proofs implied that races didn't exist. That I didn't bring proof doesn't mean race doesn't exist. That the holocaust myth wasn't debunked before doesn't mean it's not a myth. That the human soap lies weren't discovered until recently doesn't mean that they weren't lies. Either way, if it's up to anti-revisionists to prove the existence of gas chambers, they haven't proved it. And if it's up to revisionists to prove the non-existence of gas chambers (again, I'm not claiming the chambers didn't exist physically, but that they weren't GAS chambers) then they have done that.

I never claimed that I can prove, you are lying here. What I asked you is to prove race exist. You were just not able to do so.

OK then, so you still haven't proved that race doesn't exist.

First Admit you have not read the book, AFTER I will start quoting from the book not before.

I will not admit anything because I am not lying. Stop your intimidations. This is becoming rather ridiculous. And if you are trying to get this thread locked, nice try. I am going to keep this discussion civil to prevent it from being locked.

[Darorinag]

It must be noted that if we want to talk about the roots and reasons for any anti-Jewish (whether alleged or real) Nazi policy, we must go all the way back to 1933. Picking and choosing which date to start from and take the whole thing out of context is not acceptable. But I will not go into that. I will not discuss pre-war events, or what led to the deportations. I will discuss what happened after the deportations, in the concentration camps.

Currently, I am compiling a reply to an article posted on Nizkor:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/skeptic-magazine/skeptic-12.html

I am also preparing a document of replies to these websites:

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/education/revision/

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/questions/

and

http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi

Will be posting them as soon as I'm done. Stay tuned.


But for now, I am amused with the following comment:

The figure of 3-4 million murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau was an invention of communist officials in Poland (and the former U.S.S.R.) which sought to blur the uniqueness of Jewish suffering at Auschwitz. In a clever attempt to disguise the subterfuge, the figures for Jewish losses were inflated by nearly double, so that their losses would still be larger than those of non-Jewish victims, though now by a much smaller ratio. With the end of communism in Poland and the former Soviet Union, officials at the Auschwitz museum finally lowered the casualty figures in line with the estimates of historians who, for years, have insisted that between one and 1 1/2 million people perished at Auschwitz-Birkenau, 80 - 90% of them Jews.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/education/revision/#8

So if the Communists had lied about the figures, how are we supposed to accept the documents in their possession, and their "testimonies" after the camps were liberated? Are we supposed to have double standards? And how is increasing the number of victims an attempt to "blur the uniqueness of Jewish suffering"? That is beyond me. Besides, do they have any proof that it was the invention of communist officials in Poland? Whatever lies that are exposed, they blame it on others. Human soap rumours from the Germans, blowing up the number of victims in Auschwitz from the Commies, and they're done... They couldnt' blame the number increase on the Germans, after all, it wouldn't be in favour of Germans to increase it, would it?

Hmmm, actually, wait a minute, if I was told that I could create a lie about the numbers in Auschwitz, and not be discovered, I would (and this assuming that the holocaust did indeed take place):

1) If I were a Jew, increase the numbers, to gain more sympathy and claim the title of uniqueness due to large numbers of victims.
2) If I were a German, decrease the numbers of victims.
3) If I were a commie, increase the number of victims as a propaganda against the Nazis.
4) If I were from the Allied forces, increase the number of victims as part of the propaganda against Nazis and to hide my own crimes (bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, etc.)

Clearly the soviets and allies were on Jews' side. So the question now would be, who would've profited more from it? The Jews, Communists, or Allies? I would say: 1) Jews, 2) Allies 3) Communists - in that order. It's pretty clear why, I think.

1) Jews - because they wanted to be "unique" and it also would enable them to receive reparation payments, and further advance their zionist agendas.

2) Allies - because of their crimes in Dresden, and the Americans' crimes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

3) Communists - because of their crimes. Arguably, the Allies were up to their noses in this, more so than the communists (although many would disagree), that's why I have placed the Allies befor ethe Soviets.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the Jews/Zionists come first. And it's logical. From a very objectivist point of view, if I had those goals of getting a "homeland" and being able to do so through reparation payments and world sympathy, I would want to have higher numbers of victims. If this were the case in the Armenian genocide, and you could lie about the numbers, would you choose to stick with the same number, or a higher number? Morally speaking, you'd say you would stick with the same number, but if you have other agendas, such as getting a homeland, etc., and you know that could help, would you lie? Most people would. Again, this is not proof. This is speculation. And so is what Simon "Nazi hunter" Wiesenthal is doing. There are no such documents that prove that it was the Soviets who increased the numbers.

[Anonymouse]

1/17/85

Maria Bohuslawsky of the Toronto Sun reports on a cross-examination that took place the day before, in which self-proclaimed Holocaust "expert" and author Raul Hilberg admitted under oath that after 36 years of studying the Holocaust,

1.he knew of no documentary (printed) evidence that the Nazis murdered or planned to murder Jews in gas chambers,

2.he had identified large parts of the key "confession" of Kurt Gerstein as to the "gassings" as "pure nonsense" and "totally false,"

3.when presenting the Gerstein "confession" as proof of Nazi misdeeds he had edited out inconvenient sections in order to make his point,

4.he knew of no autopsies that showed death by gassing

5.he billed himself as a Holocaust expert for 18 years before even visiting Auschwitz (he then spent only one day there),

6.he was not familiar with many books on the subject of which he was alleged to be the expert, and

7.he knew of no scientific proof that even one Jew had been gassed.

(see also the article on the same date by Kirk Makin in the Globe and Mail, and the Sault Star of 1/18/85.) Understandably, when called upon to testify again in a later trial, Hilberg begged off.

[Anonymouse]

So much for Hilberg. Now Fadix has to find someone else to tout as an excuse of why he will not engage in a cordial discussion instead of stating "You haven't read the book".

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Anonymouse So much for Hilberg. Now Fadix has to find someone else to tout as an excuse of why he will not engage in a cordial discussion instead of stating "You haven't read the book".

Indeed. Hilberg was "grilled" by Doug Christie, Zundel's lawyer in the 1985 trials. He refused to come back for the 1988 trial of Zundel...

This is a letter written by Hilberg to Crown Attorney Pearson on Oct. 5, 1987:

"I have grave doubts about testifying in the Zündel case again. Last time, I testified for a day under direct examination and for three days under cross-examination. Were I to be in the witness box for a second time, the defense would be asking not merely the relevant and irrelevant questions put to me during the first trial, but it would also make every attempt to entrap me by pointing to any seeming contradiction, however trivial the subject might be, between my earlier testimony and an answer that I might give in 1988. The time and energy required to ward off such an assault would be great, and I am afraid that the investment of time alone would be too much, given all the commitments and deadlines I am facing now."

This is my final reply that will include Hilberg, so here we go, taken from Barbara Kulaszka's book "Did Six Million Really Die?" (p. 51-), part of the 1985 trial transcript - Hilberg being cross-examined by Christie (Zundel's lawyer):

Defence attorney Douglas Christie rose to cross-examine Hilberg and commenced by asking him if he had criticized Did Six Million Really Die? for not having footnotes.
Hilberg said, "Well, of course, I do not mean to say that every single publication must have footnotes, but when there is an allegation of purported facts such as appear in this pamphlet, which are so much at variance with the accepted knowledge, one is entitled to ask for a source in the form of a footnote, so that one may, as a reader, check the information." (4-764)

I simply put it to you, said Christie, that you have criticized the booklet for not having footnotes, sir. Correct or incorrect?

Hilberg replied, "Subject to my answer just before, you are correct in assessing my answer." (4-765)

And isn't it true, asked Christie, that in your entire evidence, today and yesterday, in your broad, sweeping statements of fact, you have not yourself produced one single document to support anything you have said?

"I have made verbal, oral references to documents. The matter of introducing documents in the form of pieces of papers I need hardly tell you, as an attorney, is a matter for the government to decide. I am not the person introducing documents at any time in any court whatsoever. I am simply a witness trying to explain what I know," said Hilberg.

Then you would agree, said Christie, that the simple answer is 'no', and the reason is because the Crown hasn't introduced them through you. Is that your evidence?

"Well, as you just restated the matter, I could accept it broadly, but I wish to remain with my words." (4-765)

I want to understand your words, said Christie. Very simply, that you have yourself, whether it's through the Crown's decision or yours, not produced one single document to support what you have said. Isn't that true?

Hilberg replied, "I have not presented pieces of paper, nor do I deem it my function to do so, but I have orally referred to pieces of paper."

Yes, said Christie, you have mentioned the existence of hundreds of orders and hundreds of train railway schedules and special trains but you have not produced one single example, sir. Have you?

"I have given you oral examples, with leaving out only the document numbers. And if you wish, you can check them in a book I have written. Quite a few are in there."

Hilberg confirmed that he had testified that his methodology was that of an empiricist and that he tried to find out how, but not why, the 6 million were killed. Christie put to Hilberg that at no time did he ever inquire as to whether the 6 million did in fact
die.

Hilberg replied, "The empirical method is one in which one must make certain initial determinations of what happened. In my case, these initial determinations were based upon a cursory examination of documentation pertaining to this event. By 'cursory', I don't mean one or two documents, but I mean a study, after some months, of the then available documentation. Without saying a word in the public or without printing
anything, without writing anything, I then said to myself, 'Let us take this initial source pile and ask, what exactly happened here.' Now, the what and the how are the same, and it is in this method, and by these means, that I proceeded to construct the
picture, step by step, detail by detail. That is not to say that my initial thoughts or findings were in all respects one hundred percent correct, but the fact of the Holocaust was certainly confirmed over and over." (4-768)

Christie indicated that he wanted a simple answer to his question so that he as a simple person might understand it. I asked you if your method was to find out how it happened, said Christie, not why it happened. Do you agree?

"That's correct," said Hilberg.

I asked you if you ever made an effort to determine if 6 million really died and your answer was you made an initial determination of what happened on the basis of a cursory examination of the available data. Right?, asked Christie.

"That, in order to decide for myself, and myself only, whether to invest my time, and as it turns out my life, in this project...Who would want to spend a lifetime in the study of something that did not happen?, " said Hilberg. He confirmed that he "made
an initial determination" that 6 million died: "It would be called a presumption. That is rather rebuttable. It could be destroyed. It could be abandoned upon the finding of contrary evidence." (4-769)

Hilberg agreed that he had given his opinion on a wide range of subjects involving the concentration camps and what he called the death camps: "I have formed opinions," he said. (4- 770)

Have you ever visited Bergen-Belsen?, asked Christie.

"No," said Hilberg.

Have you visited Buchenwald?, asked Christie.

"No."

Have you visited Dachau?, asked Christie.

"No, I have not visited -- I can tell you, to save your questions," said Hilberg, "I have visited only two camps... Auschwitz and Treblinka." (4-771)

Hilberg testified that there were three parts to Auschwitz, the first called Auschwitz, the second called Birkenau and the third called Monowitz. They were also sometimes called Auschwitz I, II and III. Hilberg had visited Auschwitz and Birkenau but not
Monowitz. (4-771)

Hilberg had visited Auschwitz and Birkenau once and Treblinka once in 1979 after he wrote his first book. (4-772)

So you wrote a book about a place before you went there, suggested Christie.

"I wrote a book on the basis of the documents," said Hilberg, "...I did not write a book about the place. I wrote a book about an event in which a place is mentioned, albeit repeatedly."

Hilberg agreed that he had written about what happened in a place before he went there on the basis of what he had seen in documents. (4-773)

So we agree, said Christie, that you wrote the book before you ever went to the place you were writing about?

"That's correct," said Hilberg.

When you went to Auschwitz once in 1979, how long did you stay there?, asked Christie.

"One day," said Hilberg.

[...]

Christie asked whether Hilberg recalled testifying the previous day that the figure of 56,065 in the Stroop Report was Stroop's figure "of Jewish dead" and whether he wanted to change that evidence in any way.

"That is a figure of Jewish dead," said Hilberg.

Christie produced the Stroop Report as reported in the transcript of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), Document 1061-PS and suggested to Hilberg that the figure of 56,065 did not say "killed" at all.

"They say annihilated, vernichten," said Hilberg.

It means "annihilate" to you, does it?, asked Christie.

"I dare say it means 'annihilate' to anyone familiar with the German language, and it is so written in any dictionary," said Hilberg. (4-779 to 781)

Christie put to Hilberg that the judgment of the International Military Tribunal did not agree with Hilberg's interpretation. Christie read from page 494 of the judgment:

Stroop recorded that his action at Warsaw eliminated "a proved total of 56,065 people. To that we have to add the number of those killed through blasting, fire, etc., which cannot be counted."

Christie put to Hilberg that the judgment used the word "eliminate" not "annihilate."

"My only answer is that in the judgment, the term 'eliminated' may have been used as a synonym for 'annihilated', because the German word vernichten leaves no doubt. It is not an ambiguous word. It means 'annihilate,'" said Hilberg. (4-781 to 784)

Anyway, the whole cross-examination was utterly ridiculous. I bet Doug Christie had a swell time debunking Hilberg's "knowledge" and "evidence." Good God, what a great lawyer. I wonder how much he charges.

I wanted to post the above just cos I found it very funny.

Barbara Kulaszka's book "Did Six Million Really Die?" for download here:

http://aaargh-international.org/fran/livres3/KULA.pdf

Username: visitor
Password: download

Indeed, so much about Hilberg's "evidence."

[Fadix]

Danny the liar(it is not a personal attack but a fact), you have searched in the web and finally found something that you could claim having debunked Hilberg. But it is obvious that you have even not read that trash yet(which I HAVE)… because if you had read it you would see that the so-called work is centred on the gas chambers nothing more or less, it is not a debunking of Hilbergs book because it is centered only on one part “the killing factories” and the work use the first edition published in 1967 and use references that Hilberg does not even use in his 1985 final edition of the work. Expose yourself more and more for your ignorance, beside that an individual I know well Gilles Karmasyn(the Fadix of the Shoah ) has debunked his entire claims more than one occasion, Graf two major sources Rassinier(which I entirely destroy in my analysis of his statistical “calculations”) and Flaurisson have been debunked to the core and even many denialists presently don’t use them to support their claims, but it seems that Graf(which openly admit being an extreme right wing supremacist) does, he even use Rassinier manipulation of Hilbergs work regarding Simperfol Jews(Danny just learned a new thing to search on google) to support his claim without him even bothering searching if in fact Hilberg claimed such things.

Beside that, who talked about pictures here? Yet you build my arguments to answer them, typical denialist tactic(you don’t mind I use the word denialist, it has been accepted valid during the court cases Irving lunched) Danny boy.

Ah and YES I HAVE READ Rudolfs work, I am not Danny boy claiming having read books which I have not read. Rudolf himself admit having made mistakes in one of his replies to Green and yet to hide his mistakes start presenting air photos to support his point. Rudolf premises is WRONG!!! All his argument is based on this premises Danny boy, the “Iron” theses has been discredited by countless numbers of chemists. Rudolf exposed himself when he presented air photos when he was allegedly just a chemist trying to show the impossibility of the gas chambers. Now tell me why would a chemist mind showing air photos to support his claims when he is supposed to study ZyklonB effect on the walls of the chambers? Beside that, the central references Rudolf uses is not him or a study he himself has done, he uses another person which allegedly has done the research, that person was even not a chemist but an engineer(Leuchter) known as one of the major figures in the world of revisionist. One wonder how such a person will even conduct a real research when his goal is not to study if whatever or not there was gassing but rather to “prove” there was no gassing.

Now you present me a link and tell me “Green debunked” you see how predictable you are Danny boy? Green answered to those arguments, this war between both of them is being conducted for some times now, and you are so ignorant about this subject that you post one of the answers from Rudolf which he indirectly admit his mistakes, here let quote it for you: “But even if I made mistakes – nobody is perfect – that does not mean that I intended to deceive anybody.” DAN THE MISTAKE REFERED BY GREEN WAS THE CENTER THESES of Rudolf, It WAS NOT just “mistakes.” He claims that he did not tried to deceive anybody, bs, given that those mistakes were the bases of Rudolf(Iron theses) entire work. To counter attack Rudolf present pictures and use yet again Leuchter. In fact his entire study is based on Leuchter report and recycle the same argument by saying that this was probably what happened… this is not the work of a chemist to say what “probably” happened. The work of a chemist is to present hypotheses regarding what might be responsible of the observations, Green gives countless numbers of possibilities, while Rudolf gives one. And more, just one fact alone would destroy the entire Rudolf theses, this was brought many times and Rudolf always escaped. The reports from the eyewitnesses are that after each gassings the chambers were washed not giving time for the “mighty Rudofian” reaction that Rudolf describes to happen.

Danny, now coming again to Hilberg, again you are lying Dan, how a bonehead you are, you are doing exactly like your Den alias, denying and denying, lying and lying until the truth is smashed on your head and you stopped. One wonders what interest you have to lie like that Dan, Dan… I am waiting you to debunk one argument in the work, your link which was supposedly debunking the work DOES NOT debunk it, it uses just one part of the work regarding the “killing factories” by using deceiving tactics, it lives the rest of the work untouched, the mass shouting of Jews in the Soviet font, and later on in Europe where a special organization was formed for that purposes(do you know the name of that organization Dan? it wasn’t the SS), no one was able to deny that… the only that tried to cover it was Irving in his “Hitlers war”, he claims that Hitler had nothing to do with it and that he was not aware of it… so here that brings us to Hilbergs book yet again, one of the 4 special problems Dan. So I claim that Hilbergs book is my evidences, I brought my evidence by referring to one of the special ghettos build for infirm and people whom were not threat for Germany and to back that as evidence I presented Irving(which is a revisionist BTW) and his claim that Hitler was not aware and had nothing to do with the mass shootings of entire Jewish populations starting when the NAZI received their defeats on the Soviet front. So AGAIN!!! I repeat, look Danny I am not talking about the Gas chambers here, stop bringing arguments which I don’t make… you can not decide which arguments your adversary will use. You claimed there was no plan to exterminate the Jews, I affirm there was, and I can bring ANY evidences to show you that, you CAN NOT!!! I repeat YOU CAN NOT decide which arguments the other side you use, so again… I repeat Dan… HAVE YOU or HAVE YOU NOT!!! Read Hibergs book Danny… you claim that you have and that there was no evidences in it, … I claim that it IS my first evidence… you can not claim what someone bring is not an evidence if you don’t debunk those evidences… so here, debunk one evidence… go ahead.

You claim that the eyewitness testimonies were proven to be forgeries, to support your claim you refer to the soap case… again a typical denialist tactic… where have I talked about the soaps Dan? My first evidence is regarding one ghetto in particular and finally the decision to send the “shooters”(I am waiting you to name the name of that organization) to clean the place… and I am asking you, do you believe that in fact Hitler did not knew that a special organisation charged at mass shooting people was formed and that was VERY active? Now, debunk that such an organization existed(will be hard, as there is no revisionist that claim such) and explain me why they were send in the ghettos after the decision to clean the ghettos… You see you are not yet with the camps, I AM NOT talking about the camps, neither the soaps, neither the gas chambers…

“You claimed to have disproven the existence of races.”

Where?

“Yet, when I didn't present any "proof" (ones that "qualified" in your eyes anyway), you claimed that your "proof" and my lack of proofs implied that races didn't exist. That I didn't bring proof doesn't mean race doesn't exist.”

No! yet! again you are lying, beside that races is another issue, because it implies the existence of the “same” which is the non-existence in this cases, while in your cases it is the non-existence of an object… in my cases Blacks exist.

“OK then, so you still haven't proved that race doesn't exist.”
Race is a notion that can’t be touched, it is a name attached to something, while in your cases it is an event which you say did not happen… so in your case you had to “prove” and without “proving” we are forced to conclude that the word attached does not apply.

“I will not admit anything because I am not lying. Stop your intimidations. This is becoming rather ridiculous. And if you are trying to get this thread locked, nice try. I am going to keep this discussion civil to prevent it from being locked. ”

Oh sure you are not lying, like you were not lying when you were claiming to not be Den… Dan I am starting to believe you are a pathological liar. It is obvious you have NO IDEA what is in that book.

As for the rest of your post, nothing relevant, neither there is anything relevant in the other posts; you are again fighting with an adversary which does not exist, typical denialist method.

[Darorinag]

Danny the liar

AHhh, another intimidation.

(it is not a personal attack but a fact), you have searched in the web and finally found something that you could claim having debunked Hilberg.

Does it matter where I took it from? AS long as it debunks Hilberg, and it does. Besides, I never claimed not to have taken it from the web. Those books have been banned in many countries, and it's a pain to even order it online. What exactly is your point??

Gilles Karmasyn doesn't even has his works translated into English...

Graf two major sources Rassinier(which I entirely destroy in my analysis of his statistical “calculations”) and Flaurisson have been debunked to the core and even many denialists presently don’t use them to support their claims, but it seems that Graf(which openly admit being an extreme right wing supremacist) does, he even use Rassinier manipulation of Hilbergs work regarding Simperfol Jews(Danny just learned a new thing to search on google) to support his claim without him even bothering searching if in fact Hilberg claimed such things.

You are yet to produce any such "evidence" of either the gas chambers, etc. or any evidence that they have "debunked" Rassinier, or Graf, or any other revisionist. You are using the same tactics Hilberg uses - that it's been proven, yet you don't show any proof... this is nothing new to me...

Beside that, who talked about pictures here? Yet you build my arguments to answer them, typical denialist tactic(you don’t mind I use the word denialist, it has been accepted valid during the court cases Irving lunched) Danny boy.

That's because Irving is not a revisionist. I already mentioned the trials. You cannot deny something that didn't exist, can you?

Ah and YES I HAVE READ Rudolfs work, I am not Danny boy claiming having read books which I have not read.

Look, I never questioned you about Rudolf's book, so quit this intimidation game typical of exterminationists. Read the trial records. Hilberg was completely devastated during the trials.

Rudolf himself admit having made mistakes in one of his replies to Green and yet to hide his mistakes start presenting air photos to support his point.

Yes, there is nothing wrong in admitting to have made an error, unlike your exterminationists, who, despite being proven to have used wrong statistics and arrived at wrong findings using the wrong methods, insist that they are right. Again, in no way is admitting having been mistaken equal to admitting inferiority. Again, having admitted his small mistake doesn't mean that he is admitting that his entire findings are wrong. ON the contrary, he presents even more arguments against Green, which you not surprisingly, claim he's doing in order to "hide" his mistakes.

Rudolf premises is WRONG!!!

Premises? Rudolf is using scientific experimentation. You are yet to prove that his premises were wrong per se.

the “Iron” theses has been discredited by countless numbers of chemists.

You are yet to present ONE.

Rudolf exposed himself when he presented air photos when he was allegedly just a chemist trying to show the impossibility of the gas chambers.

So a chemist can't use air photos? Heh....
Rudolf used Leuchter's findings (and Leuchter is a professional engineer) along with the air photos, unlike your exterminationists who show air photos and claim that there were holes in the ceilings. That theory has been completely disproven. Those holes weren't there in the first place. Those holes were opened by the Soviets after the liberation of the camps.

Now tell me why would a chemist mind showing air photos to support his claims when he is supposed to study ZyklonB effect on the walls of the chambers?

He did that after Green's attempts to discredit him and ruin his name. Moreover, he uses a professional engineer's words to support his claims, which i think is very relevant to chemistry. we are talking about science here, we are talking about engineering possibilities and impossibilities, as well as chemical possibilities and impossibilities. SOmething you have NOT yet brought. Again, you claimed that it is YOU who should prove that the gas chambers existed. So now do. There is NOT ONE person who has been able to prove it.

Beside that, the central references Rudolf uses is not him or a study he himself has done, he uses another person which allegedly has done the research, that person was even not a chemist but an engineer(Leuchter) known as one of the major figures in the world of revisionist.

He uses MANY MANY sources, most of which from certified chemists. He also brings in Peters, with regards to Zyklon B and disinfestation. He brings MANY chemical sources. But way to fool those who haven't read the book. Of course, not knowing German, you probably don't understand many many of the titles of the books, and many of them are chemical studies. In addition, he does not avoid citing Pressac and arguing against him.

One wonder how such a person will even conduct a real research when his goal is not to study if whatever or not there was gassing but rather to “prove” there was no gassing.

It seems like you just provided a definition of Hilberg, except that he's an anti-revisionist. I think that has been proven by Doug Christie, as I posted above.

Now you present me a link and tell me “Green debunked” you see how predictable you are Danny boy? Green answered to those arguments

Did he? Where?

DAN THE MISTAKE REFERED BY GREEN WAS THE CENTER THESES of Rudolf, It WAS NOT just “mistakes.”

No it was not. Nice try though. I will refer to this in my next post.

To counter attack Rudolf present pictures and use yet again Leuchter.

And has Leuchter been proven to be wrong? ...

The work of a chemist is to present hypotheses regarding what might be responsible of the observations, Green gives countless numbers of possibilities, while Rudolf gives one.

If you had read Rudolf's book, you wouldn't have said that. Rudolf mentions countless of possibilities and disqualifies them all, using the results.

And more, just one fact alone would destroy the entire Rudolf theses, this was brought many times and Rudolf always escaped. The reports from the eyewitnesses are that after each gassings the chambers were washed not giving time for the “mighty Rudofian” reaction that Rudolf describes to happen.

One fact could destroy Rudolf's thesis? Oh wow, that's magical indeed. The walls were being washed? I am assuming that the walls being washed would've eliminated the evidence, eh? Heh... The eyewitness accounts could not have been possible with the cyanide residues found on the walls. THAT is a PROVEN fact. No anti-revisionist has proven, using science, that the eyewitness accounts of gas chambers were correct. None. Nada. Null.

now coming again to Hilberg, again you are lying Dan, how a bonehead you are, you are doing exactly like your Den alias, denying and denying, lying and lying until the truth is smashed on your head and you stopped.

Quit your intimidations and bringing issues from the other forum here. I already said who I am and who I am not. CUt the crap.

I am waiting you to debunk one argument in the work, your link which was supposedly debunking the work DOES NOT debunk it, it uses just one part of the work regarding the “killing factories” by using deceiving tactics, it lives the rest of the work untouched, the mass shouting of Jews in the Soviet font

There is absolutely no proof of those. ANd I am not lying. You are trying to intimidate me and sway public opinion against me.

and later on in Europe where a special organization was formed for that purposes(do you know the name of that organization Dan?

Again, there is nothing other than interrogating and trying to "test" my knowledge that you can do, can you? Does it matter what I know and what I don't? I have proven that Hilberg was lying. I have proven that gas chambers did not exist. You have NOT presented any proof. NONE. All you are doing is going round and round and insisting that either you will talk about Hilber or not talk at all.

So I claim that Hilbergs book is my evidences, I brought my evidence by referring to one of the special ghettos build for infirm and people whom were not threat for Germany and to back that as evidence I presented Irving

Again, that they deported and placed "non-threatening' people in ghettos does not mean that there were any extermination plans or that these plans were being carried out. So now I am supposed to "accept" your argument because you used Irving to support your claims? That's utter BS. Irving is not an authority on the extermination acts. He is a historian and can look at documents, but he cannot prove that there was a holocaust or that there was not. I would not use IRving in any of my arguments to prove that there was no holocaust. he is not an authority. and no, denialism is not the same as revisionism. In fact, denialism does not exist, because there was no holocaust in the first place. once there is proof that there wasn't any holocaust, it's not denialism, it's revisionism - and revisionism means - revising the truth, or what used to be taken for truth.

look Danny I am not talking about the Gas chambers here, stop bringing arguments which I don’t make...

And I am talking exactly about gas chambers. What are you so afraid of? Bring on all your evidence, including dr. green. I shall provide more scientific findings to prove how and why they were wrong.

You claimed there was no plan to exterminate the Jews, I affirm there was, and I can bring ANY evidences to show you that, you CAN NOT!!!

Again, I thought it was up to you to bring the proofs. You said so in one of your posts above. That if you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it, and up to me to disprove it. No? So then, bring them in. I shall debunk them. Just like Hilberg was completely debunked, and not just by a historian and expert in the "holocaust', but by a lawyer.

I repeat YOU CAN NOT decide which arguments the other side you use

Where did I say anything about deciding what arguments you can use? I said I am not going to talk about the plans to exterminate jews. I said I am interested in whether or not the exterminations actually took place. If you feel you can prove that the exterminations took place by using extermination plan "documents" then by all means, post them. As for the rest, I didn't prevent you from posting anything. I said if you do post them, I will just ignore them. Again, you are using this as an excuse not to post them. We both know. I think anyone who's been following this thread already knows this. It's pure and simple logical deduction.

I repeat Dan… HAVE YOU or HAVE YOU NOT!!! Read Hibergs book Danny…

How many times have you asked this? ANd how many times have I answered you? Why do you care if I have read it? Assuming that I have not read it, does it mean that you can't use the evidence? And yes, I have read it. For Christ's sake, now post your evidence.

you can not claim what someone bring is not an evidence if you don’t debunk those evidences…

You have not brought in any. When you do, I will, provided that it's relevant to the extermination acts rather than the plans. For any documents that "prove" extermination PLANS, start a new thread. I don't see what's keeping you from starting a new thread about that. Either you want to "prove" or you don't. Take your pick. This can't go on for another 20 pages.

You claim that the eyewitness testimonies were proven to be forgeries, to support your claim you refer to the soap case… again a typical denialist tactic… where have I talked about the soaps Dan?

I never said you mentioned the soaps. I was simply referring to why testimonies and confessions cannot be taken as absolute proof. Why? let me repeat it for you - because it has been proven, in many cases, that those were false confessions, false "testimonies", false documents. They were false, Fadi. Yad Vashem declared that there was no human soap made!! Yet, many confessed to it! And there were many documents (named in one of my posts at the beginning of this thread) presented at the Nuremberg trials, and their validity wasn't even questioned. WHen I bringing in something as a reply to you, I am not necessarily referring to what you wrote. In bringing an example, I am trying to prove why eyewitness testimonies and even confessions and documents presented at the Nuremberg trials cannot be considered absolute proof. ANd by absolute proof I mean, it's a possibility that not all of them have been forged, but when you have dozens of them proven to be forged, in order to use any more such documents, you must prove that they were not fake. Again, going back to what you said, it's up to YOU to prove your claims. You claim those documents were real. Prove it. Because when there is a case (and many cases there have been!) that it was a forgery, it's all in the trash bin. It can't be used as proof. Because if one has been faked, the others could've been too. You cannot use those as proof in a court.

[Darorinag]

Now, debunk that such an organization existed

I am not going to debunk anything. It is your claim, and you have to prove that it existed, it's not up to me to prove that they didn't exist before you prove that they existed in the first place. And note that by saying that, I am not denying their existence. I might, later on, depending on your evidence. So far, you have presented none.

and explain me why they were send in the ghettos after the decision to clean the ghettos…

Again, we are not talking about common sense here. Common sense might've told us that planning to kill off 5 million jews during a war and expecting to win that war at the same time (internal war with jews, and external war with allies) would've been logically impossible, a suicide, a madness. that doesn't mean there were no plans. again, i am not claiming that there were plans. i am bringing in an example. common sense and proof are two different things. if you can't prove that there were any extermination plans in deporting jews and creating ghettos, etc., you can't imply that common sense would've said so. that is exactly what Hilberg does throughout his book. he constantly asks subtle questions of why would he have done this or that if there were no extermination plans or acts, etc. that is not proof, Fadi.

You see you are not yet with the camps, I AM NOT talking about the camps, neither the soaps, neither the gas chambers…

I am waiting for you to do that. but i know what you're trying to do. you are trying to do exactly what hilberg does, as i mentioned above.

Oh sure you are not lying, like you were not lying when you were claiming to not be Den… Dan I am starting to believe you are a pathological liar. It is obvious you have NO IDEA what is in that book.

And you proved that I am "den"? Again, you are bringing irrelevant things from other forums, which have no place in this forum OR in this thread. Nice try. And again, what difference does it make? Suppose I had not read the book? What is your point?

As for the rest of your post, nothing relevant, neither there is anything relevant in the other posts; you are again fighting with an adversary which does not exist, typical denialist method.

Yes, way to go. Avoid answering by claiming it's irrelevant. You know, the exterminationists over at the revisionist forum are pretty logical and at least attempt to reply (without avoiding) to our claims. You don't.

8 pages, and no proof yet. Still waiting.

[Anonymouse]

Like Hilberg was grilled by Christie, Fadix is now getting grilled.