Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Seapahn Dan, instead of changing the topic once again, why don't you finally go back on topic as so many times you have said you are trying to do? Why don't you bring forth an "exterminationalist" (or whatever the heck you guys are calling it) book, and tear it to pieces by your analysis?

Fadix has been asking for this since page I don't know what and somehow everyone just keeps fighting and ignoring the basic issue at hand.

The basic issue at hand? The basic issue at hand was not debunking books per se, but debunking the myth of the "holocaust." I never asked exterminationists to debunk revisionist books. I never asked Fadi to do that. Instead, he is asking me for something that not only will take tons of time to write (besides answering claims and compiling references), but something that he will dismiss as "Nazist" when I post it. He has done this before, and I am not willing to do it again. As far as I know, there are no evidences by exterminationists that the gas chambers existed. None. I am asking him to prove me wrong and present a book title so that I can take it out of the librar and read it if I haven't already.

I posted in the thread long before Fadi did. And not once did I mention that I wanted exterminationists to debunk any revisionist book. He can choose his BEST "evidence", and I will debunk it. Instead, he's trying to turn the tables around and demand a proof from me. He's the one claiming that the chambers existed. It's up to HIM to prove that they did exist. So far, he hasn't done it.

Thanks for relaying his message to me. Once he stops accusing me of lying about having read that book and calling me names, I will take him off ignore. Note that on the revisionist forum, he would not have lasted for 1 minute with the type of intimidations he makes. And of course, he will claim that they were "afraid" of his replies and that he "proved" them "wrong," but intimidation remains intimidation, and being banned or ignored for it in no way implies avoiding discussing it with him. I told him time and again, either he observes the rules of civil discussions, or I will ignore him. There's no middle ground.

[Sip]

Well, forget what Fadi is asking then. You have said you have read both sides and you choose to believe the "revisionists". I don't see how that is discussing while all you do is preach your religion.

Now I may be completely wrong here but it seems to me you like to take the unpopular stance on a topic because it makes you the center of attention. Sure masses have been wrong before in the past. But something doesn't become true just because it is a very unpopular stance and a very small minority claims it to be true.

Ignoring all the facts, even if what you say is true, I fail to see why the whole world believes what it believes now ... you claim the jews have made it all up. Well, how do you explain the Germans themselves admitting the holocaust?

[Darorinag]

You have said you have read both sides and you choose to believe the "revisionists". I don't see how that is discussing while all you do is preach your religion.

I have read both sides and only one side proves something. And that side is revisionism. I believe those who can prove something, rather than basing their "proofs" on "givens" that haven't been proven.

Now I may be completely wrong here but it seems to be you like to take the unpopular stance on a topic because it makes you the center of attention.

Not really. I already stated that I am against communism/leftism, and liberalism. How trendy does that make me? Last time I checked, THAT was the trend and the center of attention...

Sure masses have been wrong before in the past. But something doesn't become true just because it is a very unpopular stance and a very small minority claims it to be true.

I never claimed that, did I? None of my arguments were based on what you just said. The only reason I mentioned how revisionists were persecuted was to show that they didn't have any political agenda behind revisionism. There are other ways to go if it's about political agenda.

Ignoring all the facts, even if what you say is true, I fail to see why the whole world believs what it believes now ...

The facts? What facts? Facts can't become facts without being proven. The whole world believed in many things. The whole world believed that the world was flat. Doesn't mean it was. 99% of the world are TOLD what to believe. Not that they are dumb. Just that they don't like to think by themselves, at least not in things that don't belong to their daily worries and problems. Why seek trouble when what's done is done? Just go with it, it's not like it's the end of the world if people believe in the holocaust; that's what they say. Well, guess what, that's not how it works in reality.

you claim the jews have made it all up. Well, how do you explain the Germans themselves admitting the holocaust?

I already mentioned this. If you had read my replies more closely, you would've noticed what I said about this. Many of the confessions were proven to be false. The confessions were obtained under British and Soviet control. Now a question to you - how do YOU explain that the confessions by Germans were proven false? Such as the human soap issue. And all the documents about this presented at the Nuremberg Trials? Assuming that the human soap issue was indeed a rumour started by Germans, how can you explain USSR-197?

The USSR-197 document is presented by Carlos Porter in his book Made in Russia: The Holocaust (mentioned above): http://www.cwporter.com/pg368.htm

[Fadix]

Dan, if you want me to stop calling you a liar, then stop lying.

You have claimed having read both sides... if that is true, just give one example of book from the other side which you have read... you told me you have read Hilbergs which is not true, you tell me that there was no evidences in Hilbergs book and post me an essay of about 60 pages using Rassinier and Flaurisson as prime sources as well as the 1967 version of Hilbergs book. In fact you have even not read that work which you posted the link. I am ready to bet that you had even no idea of whom was Hilberg before I refered to him. Dan, Hilbergs work is 1400 pages long, contain hundreds and hundreds of references and you claim there was no evidences in. To discredit the guy you posted a trial affair...

Furthermore, you even claimed having read Irving and at the same time you ignore the "shooting" organization which is refered in every Irving books I have read. You didn't even knew that Irving is a revisionist supported by Zundel and Rudolf themselves, in fact in 1994 Rudolf himself presented himself as "experct" to support Irving.

You have lied and lied and now you ignore me. It is obvious why you are ignoring me Dan, because more you answer more you fall.

Danny boy, there were witness for the gas chambers, there was cyanide found on every major places where the witnesses testified there was gas chambers... Rudolf theses fell part for three reasons, the "Iron theses" which takes one possibility over others, "the plaster theses" which is self-destructive and the "church example" which is considered as an exeption rather than a rule...

So, there is no scientific evidences that would reject the gassings.

In fact the conclusion of the Cracow Institute was:

"The present study shows that in spite of the passage of a considerable period of time (over 45 years) in the walls of the facilities which once were in contact with hydrogen cyanide the vestigial amounts of the combinations of this constituent of Zyklon B have been preserved. This is also true of the ruins of the former gas chambers. The cyanide compounds occur in the building materials only locally, in the places where the conditions arose for their formation and persistence for such a long time.

In his reasoning Leuchter (2) claims that the vestigial amounts of cyanide combinations detected by him in the materials from the chamber ruins are residues left after fumigations carried out in the Camp "once, long ago"(Item 14.004 of the Report). This is refuted by the negative results of the examination of the control samples from living quarters, which are said to have been subjected to a single gassing, and the fact that in the period of fumigation of the Camp in connection with a typhoid epidemic in mid-1942 there were still no crematoria in the Birkenau Camp. The first crematorium (Crematorium II) was put to use as late as 15 March 1943 and the others several months later."

The question here is, was there or was there not cyanide? End of the story...

What reviisionists try to do is to find "other reasons" for the presence of cyanide or try to minimise its concentration or in Rudolf case proposing self destructive theses such as his plaster one.

As for debunking revisionists books... Dan, let refreash your memory. YOU CLAIMED having read both sides, so I genetly ask you yet again what book of the other side have your read. Will you answer or escape?

[Sip]

Originally posted by Fadix As for debunking revisionists books... Dan, let refreash your memory. YOU CLAIMED having read both sides, so I genetly ask you yet again what book of the other side have your read. Will you answer or escape?

He has put you on ignore he says so that answers that question Seems like this thread is done.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Seapahn He has put you on ignore he says so that answers that question Seems like this thread is done.

Yep!!! He has read both side but has not read the other side.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Seapahn He has put you on ignore he says so that answers that question Seems like this thread is done.

This thread is not done. This thread is for anyone who might wish to discuss this issue, not only those who have read Hilberg's book. That is a typical exlusionary tactic that exterminationists use.

I already stated that this is not a competition on who has read more books. It is also not a quiz or interrogation thread. Fadi has been going on about this for the last 12 pages, and he still hasn't posted anything.

All he has managed to do is mention some names, Dr. Green, Pressac, and Hilberg, all of whom either present absolutely no proof that the gas chambers existed, or have been completely disproven by revisionists.

With regards to the blue on the walls that many exterminationists talk about:

Exterminationists claimed that the walls could've been painted. Clearly, they had no clue that it was the Iron blue (Prussian blue) pigment. Bailer, Clair, etc. claim that the cyanide fumigation could not have caused the iron blue to have formed in the brickwork. However, Rudolf proves them wrong in the Rudolf Report, and also talks about this in his book Dissecting the Holocaust, in which he says that the above mentioned hypoethesis fails to explain (he has more than one point with regard to this, but I am quoting only one of his points, which I found most interesting):

"why the deeper, subsurface(!) layers of the walls of the delousing chamber in Building 5b are a greenish blue, and saturated with cyanide compounds (unless for some inexplicable reason the mortar used for these walls was dyed blue before being used);"

(p. 365, Dissecting the Holocaust. Germar Rudolf).

[Fadix]

Danny danny danny... don't make yourself look like a victim.



Danny, if you were to tell me the truth from the beginning all of this would not have happened... you lied to me Dan.

This is about researches Danny boy, before someone conclude he must read materials, you claimed having read materials from both sides... here you have showed having read no material from the other side...

Danny, you claim you can debunk every "claims" yet again, you have no idea of the evidences because you have not read a single material of the "other side." If in fact you have read a material from the other side, then which material it is?

"all of whom either present absolutely no proof that the gas chambers existed, or have been completely disproven by revisionists."

How can you know they have been disproven by revisionists when you have even not read their works? Revisionists can selectivally quote from an author and later on answer those points... so again without having read the originals, the sources, in this cases it would be the authors you claim having been debunked, you can not claim they have been discredited because you did not read their works.

Just an example of how bonehead you are... Danny boy you yet quote again Rudolf, this time his newest work, yet this theses is again the plaster theses... where is the plaster Dan? No plaster found... Rudolf expect to find every unimmaginable evidences in order to accept the theses of gassing, yet all his theses is build on an unproven premisses. WHERE IS THE PLASTER?

[Darorinag]

Fadi, you are aware that I cannot see what you've said in your replies. If you're done with your personal attacks, PM me and I will take you off ignore. That's just in case you were replying / talking to me.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag Fadi, you are aware that I cannot see what you've said in your replies. If you're done with your personal attacks, PM me and I will take you off ignore. That's just in case you were replying / talking to me.

Of course you can see me Danny.

Danny, I am not attacking you... now stop finding excuses and answer me boy.