Holocaust Revisionism

Heat,

You are under the mistaken impression that, because of who someone associated with, their research is somehow invalidated. You know better than that.

I am going to guess that you, too, want to sweep expert testimony under the rug. Or maybe I'm wrong, and you would like to give your take on the information in post #97. Just asking.

 

Let's see... how about the general concept that if you lock people in a sealed room and add poison gas, people die? I don't care which experts like or dislike the way they went about it.

None of this is controversial except to a small number of extremists.

 

What are you doing, Odon, looking for a loophole of some sort so that you can continue to not provide an example of what you claimed?

 

Karen.

Was the court-recognized expert in the information I provided an extremist? I understand that you don't care what experts like or dislike. But I don't see what that has to do with what they're saying about the logistical impossibility of gassing and cremation.

 

No. Why would I need a loophole? I said: I have not overlooked it. I read it and then ignored it.

 

Experts on any subject can be wrong. That's why I liked being able to spend more than half a day looking over one of the world's largest collections of historical archives related to this topic, about two years ago. Nobody had to tell me what to think about it. I'm not stupid.

If you honestly think I'm going to care less about what I learned there than the postings of one guy on the internet, then you don't understand how reasonable people form opinions or reach conclusions about serious, important subjects.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830z2XlrP08"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830z2XlrP08
It is called propaganda. It was done then and it is being done now. Also if there can even be any doubt as to an expert's personal relationships (extremists, skinheads, that sort of thing) then that expert's opinion should be taken with a grain of salt period. No different than if an expert were to be seen as having relations with Zionists. Biased perception is biased perception, and because there is no way to verify the experts perception as not biased they must not be taken at full value.

 

FYI: Sun News is a new Canadian network that is basically modelled on Fox News... and nobody really watches it.

 

You might like this (maybe you have seen it before)

An expert at work...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47jeOYLauxw"]The Holocaust and Fred Leuchter - YouTube

 

You want a more credible source then?

Islamophobia Today
The Body of Truth
New Deal
World News Daily
The point of all this is to show that we are currently repeating the process that started in Germany all those years ago. While revisionism may not be directly responsible for violence and hatred toward Jews today, it does aid those who are responsible. Look around and then remember what George Santayana once said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

 

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just letting you know that Sun news is not really considered credible. I figured that since you're not Canadian, you probably wouldn't have known that.

 

Well you are right in that regard . Just figured if it wasn't I best find some that are. Tried to stay away from most Jewish ones, because I know not everyone thinks they're credible. Hoppi probly wouldn't

 

You may be under the mistaken impression that all those who are self professed revisionists do not have their own agendas. When you make a living from groups that are questionable at best, it is a consideration to the validity and motive of their research and of the objectivity of conclusions.

As I stated that does not mean that all are of that cloth but those who are the more vocal or militant in their views are. They profit from it. There are academics who devote their lives to this but they do not take to the circuit and profit from it, those I do respect for that if not all of their views. It is good to question and revisit history but objectivity is also paramount if you wish to obtain credibility.

I, in all honesty can not give you a yes or no on the expert testimony that you feel is accurate.

In some ways it simply begets more questions. Why they would go to those extremes to so called delouse them in order to starve and work them to death is not logical either. Given that starvation was an issue the money used to fumigate them would instead have been better spent on food to increase their productivity and longevity. All accounts are that groups were separated and the workers were put to work and the others were exterminated. If that is the case then they only deloused or fumigated the ones that they separated as not being able to work. Those were not capable or able to were supposedly sent then for fumigation but not put back in the camps to work. It does not seem logical.

I do believe as I stated previously that some died through extermination, some through disease and some through torturous conditions.

People died. While it is probable that it was not 6 million it was also not 10. Although 10 would not be any more acceptable not when they were selected based upon what they were.

For someone who states they did not say that a tragedy did not happen you sure seem to be on a path that says exactly that. If at the outset there was not one Jewish person gassed does that make any difference to the reality that they were needlessly killed or culled because they were Jewish (or Polish or any other selected group). They were not random POW's, they were selected.

The third Reich were never known to be humanitarians.

 

Storch's undocumented posts are cut-and-paste from the IHR denialist website.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review

 

Background on Fred Leuchter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter

The details about Leuchter are worth reading. It takes time to read through details, but it's needed to gain a better understanding.

Leuchter is applauded by denialists for being what they describe as a court-recognized expert witness at a trial related to the Holocaust. Leuchter was appearing in court to defend another denialist. Based on cursory view of a cut-and-paste from a denialist website, one might initially think he is believable. When Leuchter's background, lack of engineering degree, faulty measurement methods in his personal investigation, and the details of his court appearance are looked at more carefully, his claims are not convincing.

 

This same type of behavior happens in other truther/denialism camps. As an example, Judy Wood has a PhD and used to teach mechanical engineering at Clemson University. She became a 9/11 truther and started making wild claims about the WTC Twin Towers being 'dustified' by space-based energy beams run by U.S. government agents. She based this on her personal 'forensic investigation' (similar to Leuchter's personal investigation). Political, ideological, and financial motives can cloud people's minds and make them project explanations not based on overall objective facts. Similar to Leuchter and the Holocaust denialists, Wood became the pride of the 9/11 truther community. Truthers have purported her as an expert based on her status of being a former professor. Her writings appear on various 9/11 truther sites.

Holocaust deniers can cherry pick facts and find someone who was at a concentration camp who didn't witness the executions that occurred and, based on that, claim that executions never happened. 9/11 truthers cherry pick facts in a similar manner, such as citing examples of firemen who never made it up to the aircraft-impacted floors of the towers and who saw little fire. According to truther/denialists, that's proof that the fires weren't that bad and couldn't have caused the collapse, in spite of hundreds of people jumping to their deaths because of the heat, metal columns seen glowing red hot, and walls seen bowing inward and crumpling leading up to the collapse.

 

And yet, approximately 6 or more pages after this stuff was first mentioned, nobody has posted any cited facts or expert testimony to attempt to refute it?

 

...

 

Ah ok I'll check those out. To be honest, I stopped reading your posts in this thread when you started saying things like it is justified to imprison people for revising/denying/questioning the Holocaust.

You also seem(ed) to like encouraging conflict, and many of your posts were pretty rude.

Is it really so difficult for some people to discuss things constructively and calmly?

 

When/where did I say that? Edit: 'denying' yes, I did say something like that (it was more to do with inciting racial/hatred).

Rude?
I wasn't seeking to only respond to people that agreed with me, no.
I think you have said that is where/when you feel more comfortable.
I think you said or implied you didn't enjoy debating/responding to people that didn't share your outlook.

I think I have and I think I am.

You seem more: 'Yeah, dude, that's interesting' /end ... a kinda person.
So perhaps my 'style' isn't your cup of tea.

'to be honest I have very, very few arguments or debates in reality. Thing is, I get bored of arguments VERY fast, so I tend to just go off on my merry way. Discussions where we pretty much agree I totally love, because then we can just share information without any raised voices or conflict. But the second confrontation arises, I tend to tire of it quickly and go back to something else.

That's probably why, when online, I tend to just ignore people I will inevitably clash with. Because confrontation is no fun, and ultimately there are some people in this world that you will just never really get on with no matter how hard you try. Or at least that's the way it seems to me'