Can you show me some proof/s?

Discussions
Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:17 am

Hello,

I think that this is a good place for my questions.

1)Can you show me proof or proofs, that Jews were gassed in nazi gas chambers?
2)Can you show me proof or proofs, that nazis had policy to physically exterminate all Jews?
3)Can you show me proof or proofs that nazis physically exterminated six million Jews and additional five or six million non-Jews?

Please, try to choose only the best proofs and if possible, quote directly every source or information which you would like to show me instead of sending link on whole books, whole long articles and etc.

Please if you can follow the rules below I would be glad
-no ad hominem
-no strawman
-no dodging, please, all questions must be adressed so the dscussion will be constructive and informative.

I would like to see polite behavior, because I know that quite often these discussions are full of attacks and I don´t like this kind of behavior, I only wrote three simple questions and i would like to know your answers.

Thank you.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:14 am

Bob wrote: I think that this is a good place for my questions.
1)Can you show me proof or proofs, that Jews were gassed in nazi gas chambers?
Can I start with Treblinka II? Do you know where Treblinka II is?
Bob wrote: Please, try to choose only the best proofs and if possible, quote directly every source or information which you would like to show me instead of sending link on whole books, whole long articles and etc.
Have you read any books on the subject at all yet? Please list the books you have read so you know my quotes will be in context.

It seems at first glance that you are a holocaust denier. Is this correct?

Cann you quickly read this short paper that destroys holocaust denial arguments so you can get your counter-evidence in order. I don't want to waste time if you have no basic understanding of the holocaust.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... .html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Hex
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1136
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:26 pm
Custom Title: mi malam ciuj el vi
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Hex » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:28 am

Here's another link on the holocaust that shows the absurdity of the wide spread lies that would be in the millions, of people, about the holocaust.

Come back to me after you've read it and all the links and sources that are supplied.
Spoiler:
  TOYNBEE IDEA
IN KUBRICK'S 2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER
 


Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Can I start with Treblinka II? Do you know where Treblinka II is?
Yes, you can, please provide me with proof/s which are in connection with Treblinka II. Yes, I know.
Matthew Ellard wrote: Have you read any books on the subject at all yet? Please list the books you have read so you know my quotes will be in context.
Yes, I am generally interested in this subject which require reading books. No problem Matthew, you can provide me with quotes, context is no problem, I have knowledge about the subject.
Matthew Ellard wrote:It seems at first glance that you are a holocaust denier.
Is this correct?

No Matthew, I only don´t believe in certain aspects of holocaust.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you quickly read this short paper that destroys holocaust denial arguments so you can get your counter-evidence in order. I don't want to waste time if you have no basic understanding of the holocaust. [/color]
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... .html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am familiar with this article, but despite that article, I placed my questions anyway which means that I still didn´see answer.

Regarding the above article, are you familiar with this warning?
deathcamps.org wrote:Unauthorized links to our website from the controversial and grossly inaccurate hate blog postings of the following persons:
Roberto Muehlenkamp - Sergey Romanov - Dr. Nick Terry
Are not condoned by ARC. We maintain no connection to Holocaust hate blogs, and would caution all to avoid being misled by these individuals.

http://www.deathcamps.org/dedication/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hex wrote:Here's another link on the holocaust that shows the absurdity of the wide spread lies that would be in the millions, of people, about the holocaust.

Come back to me after you've read it and all the links and sources that are supplied.
Thanks, I am back, I still didn´t see answers for my questions, please, quote concrete things which you consider as an answer to my questions.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:40 am

My dear Bob, it is all too ironic that you would ask for "no ad hominem" in the OP, yet you would proceed with pure ad hominem about some "warning", instead of addressing the Holocaust Controversies blog arguments.

Why do you think that a warning on a site without any credibility means anything? You do know that site has been ovetaken by a pair of thugs? If not, you will have a lot to learn at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... artexposed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But that they chose to deface their pages with this pathetic "warning" just because of a 5-years old personal vendetta is sufficient evidence of their lack of seriousness.

Meanwhile, our critique has been advertised on the official blog of The Holocaust History Project - a site with real credibility to its name - see http://holocausthistoryproject.blogspot ... ement.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34978
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Gord » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:53 am

:wave: Hi Sergey. (You don't know me, but I've read some of your stuff before.)
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:47 am

Sergey Romanov wrote:My dear Bob, it is all too ironic that you would ask for "no ad hominem" in the OP, yet you would proceed with pure ad hominem about some "warning", instead of addressing the Holocaust Controversies blog arguments.

Why do you think that a warning on a site without any credibility means anything? You do know that site has been ovetaken by a pair of thugs? If not, you will have a lot to learn at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... artexposed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But that they chose to deface their pages with this pathetic "warning" just because of a 5-years old personal vendetta is sufficient evidence of their lack of seriousness.

Meanwhile, our critique has been advertised on the official blog of The Holocaust History Project - a site with real credibility to its name - see http://holocausthistoryproject.blogspot ... ement.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am sorry, but I don´t see any ad hominem, only warning regarding highly inaccurate and controversial information from you, no personal attack. Can you quote ad hominem from this warning? I don´t see it. I placed question about it only to know if Mathew know this warning, that´s all.

I didn´t say anything about how credible this warning is, I only asked if Mathew know it. Regarding your link, here is different view

http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/431 ... w1ztPn2bMo
http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/442 ... w1wUvn2bMp

But since the topic isn´t about your conflict with this project or persons, please, don´t discuss it here, start your own thread, subject of this topic is in the first comment, thanks.

Your link to holocaust-history.org is a little strange for me since this project is backed up at least by one of your colleague and member of your blog Andrew Mathis, that means you support your article with your own source. And I already know this project. But anyway, no problem, just quote some proof which you consider as a suitable answer to my questions and choose source you want. I wanted direct quotation if possible instead of linking to whole article since I can´t know what you consider as an answer from this article, I already mentioned that I know materials which you already provided me, but placed my questions anyway, this mean that I still didn´t find answers to my questions.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:57 am

I am sorry, but I don´t see any ad hominem
"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."

Instead of addressing the arguments put out in the HC critique, you choose to quote someone else's fact-free libel. That's ad hominem. Look it up.
Regarding your link, here is different view
Given that this view is put out by the very same person who defaced the ARC site with that fact-free "warning", this is again a pathetic ad hominem. This "forum" and all of its dozens of sockpuppets are run by Carmelo Lisciotto, who is also a Holocaust deniers' fellow traveller, posting at the denial CODOH forum as "Blogbuster". I've written about Lisciotto and his smear tactics, you can read up on that at the link I gave above.
Your link to holocaust-history.org is a little strange for me since this project is backed up at least by one of your colleague and member of your blog Andrew Mathis
I fail to see the strangeness. The Holocaust History Project is a well-known and credible site, its members helped Dr. Lipstadt's defense team during the Irving v. Lipstadt trial (as has been acknowledged, for example, in Prof. van Pelt's book on the trial) and they published articles in peer-reviewed journals, like Yad Vashem Studies and Holocaust and Genocide Studies. THHP needs no apologetics from me, their name is the quality sign in itself.

So, once again you choose to engage in ad hominem smears instead of addressing arguments. Illustrative, isn't it?

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:02 pm

Sergey Romanov wrote:"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."

Instead of addressing the arguments put out in the HC critique, you choose to quote someone else's fact-free libel. That's ad hominem. Look it up.
Yes, I know what is ad hominem, that is why I asked - Can you quote ad hominem from this warning? Answer me please. I also don´t see any arguments here, you must quote them from article, I didn´t see answers to my questions in your article.
Sergey Romanov wrote:Given that this view is put out by the very same person who defaced the ARC site with that fact-free "warning", this is again a pathetic ad hominem. This "forum" and all of its dozens of sockpuppets are run by Carmelo Lisciotto, who is also a Holocaust deniers' fellow traveller, posting at the denial CODOH forum as "Blogbuster". I've written about Lisciotto and his smear tactics, you can read up on that at the link I gave above.
It doesn´t make sense to me, you accused some Carmelo Lisciotto of being "denier´s fellow traveller" allegedly posting on codoh, but in your link you associate him with HEART, which can be hardly considered as denying page, so you are wrong or he has split personality. As I said - please, start your own thread, your conflicts aren´t subject of this thread, I will no more adress your claims regarding you personal conflicts with other peoples or projects, I hope you will respect it since the subject of this thread is different and also I am not in position to judge if you are telling truth or if your opponents are telling truth since I don´t know anything about your relationships. Thanks for understanding. Please note, that I only asked Matthew if he know that warning from ARC and not what he think about it, nor did I think about it.
Sergey Romanov wrote:I fail to see the strangeness. The Holocaust History Project is a well-known and credible site, its members helped Dr. Lipstadt's defense team during the Irving v. Lipstadt trial (as has been acknowledged, for example, in Prof. van Pelt's book on the trial) and they published articles in peer-reviewed journals, like Yad Vashem Studies and Holocaust and Genocide Studies. THHP needs no apologetics from me, their name is the quality sign in itself.

So, once again you choose to engage in ad hominem smears instead of addressing arguments. Illustrative, isn't it?
This isn´t ad hominem , I only found strange that you wrote about H-H.org project which promote your article to make an impression, but the fact is that is backed up by your colleague and member of your group from your blog, so If I understand it correctly, "you" promote your own article, I din´t say that I disagree with this, I only wrote that I found it strange, that´s all. Please note that I didn´t write anything about A. Mathis credibility/reputation or about credibility of H-H.org I only wrote about this promote issue. I must say, that I see ad homines only from you ("sockpuppets" "thugs") and also you made strawmans since I didn´t say anything which you accused me for. But if you disagree, quote me.

I didn´t write anything about credibility of H-H.org, did I? So no problem for me, just quote some proof which will be answer to my questions and use whatewher source you want. Thanks.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:14 pm

Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."

Instead of addressing the arguments put out in the HC critique, you choose to quote someone else's fact-free libel. That's ad hominem. Look it up.
Yes, I know what is ad hominem, that is why I asked - Can you quote ad hominem from this warning? Answer me please. I also don´t see any arguments here, you must quote them from article, I didn´t see answers to my questions in your article.
Your use of the fact-free "warning" which doesn't provide any substance and doesn't come from a credible source while not addressing the arguments of the HC team constitutes an ad hominem argument. It's not that difficult to understand, my dear Bob.

Sergey Romanov wrote:Given that this view is put out by the very same person who defaced the ARC site with that fact-free "warning", this is again a pathetic ad hominem. This "forum" and all of its dozens of sockpuppets are run by Carmelo Lisciotto, who is also a Holocaust deniers' fellow traveller, posting at the denial CODOH forum as "Blogbuster". I've written about Lisciotto and his smear tactics, you can read up on that at the link I gave above.
It doesn´t make sense to me, you accused some Carmelo Lisciotto of being "denier´s fellow traveller" allegedly posting on codoh, but in your link you associate him with HEART, which can be hardly considered as denying page, so you are wrong or he has split personality.
I'm not sure what is hard to understand here, that is, unless you try very hard to misunderstand. Current webmaster of deathcamps.org and holocaustresearchproject.org, Carmelo Lisciotto AKA "Sophie Scholl" AKA "Eric Greenburg" AKA "Blogbuster" AKA many other sockpuppets posts at Holocaust-denying CODOH forum as "Blogbuster" with the sole aim of libelling the HC team. He doesn't say anything negative about the Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis at that forum and is, in fact, very friendly with them. Maybe this does not make him a Holocaust denier, but it does make him a Holocaust deniers' fellow traveler, i.e. exactly what I called him. Got it now?
As I said - please, start your own thread, your conflicts aren´t subject of this thread,
Indeed, which is why I found it ironic that you brought up the libel against HC as an ad hominem argument against our critique, while pleading for "no ad hominems" in the OP.
I will no more adress your claims regarding you personal conflicts with other peoples or projects
Good! Then you can stop with the constant stream of ad hominem libel and start addressing the actual evidence we wrote about. Thank you very much! :mrgreen:

This isn´t ad hominem , I only found strange that you wrote about H-H.org project which promote your article to make an impression, but the fact is that is backed up by your colleague and member of your group from your blog,
Actually, Dr. Nicholas Terry is also a member of THHP, and he has this great article on their site:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro- ... orts.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The HC team is proud to include members of and cooperate with the THHP team.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:11 pm

Sergey Romanov wrote:
Instead of addressing the arguments put out in the HC critique, you choose to quote someone else's fact-free libel. That's ad hominem. Look it up.
Instead of adressing what arguments? I don´t see any arguments here, only link to article on your blog, but I requested quotations of that arguments/proofs long time ago since I didn´t find any in that article. Again, I din´t wrote anything about that warning, only if Mathew know about it as you can see in my second post "Regarding the above article, are you familiar with this warning?" , that´s all. You claim about ad hominem is thus wrong, I only wanted to know if he know about existence of this warning, anything else are only your strawmans.
Sergey Romanov wrote:Your use of the fact-free "warning" which doesn't provide any substance and doesn't come from a credible source while not addressing the arguments of the HC team constitutes an ad hominem argument. It's not that difficult to understand, my dear Bob.
Why this ARC source is not credible and your controversies blog is credible? I cannot adress proofs/arguments/answers to my questions since here are none of them and I didn´t find any in your articles, you must quote them here.

Sergey Romanov wrote:I'm not sure what is hard to understand here, that is, unless you try very hard to misunderstand. Carmelo Lisciotto AKA "Sophie Scholl" AKA "Eric Greenburg" AKA "Blogbuster" AKA many other sockpuppets posts at Holocaust-denying CODOH forum as "Blogbuster" with the sole aim of libelling the HC team. He doesn't say anything negative about the Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis at that forum and is, in fact, very friendly with them. Maybe this does not make him a Holocaust denier, but it does make him a Holocaust deniers' fellow traveler, i.e. exactly what I called him. Got it now?
1) If I got it correctly, saying no negative things (if you are telling truth) about deniers does make from someone a "fellow of deniers" or "maybe a denier" even when that someone is member of orthodox holocaust site or is believer?

2) One of the requirement for not being "fellow of deniers" or not being "maybe a denier" is to say negative things about them?

3) All family members, friends and etc. of that someone are in advance "fellows of deniers" or "maybe a deniers" when thay don´t say negative things about their relatives and when they are friendly with them.

4) Is this the case only of deniers or do you apply this logic everytime, for example "saying no negative things about Sergey Romanov does make someone a "fellow of Sergey Romanov" or "maybe he agree with Sergey Romanov"?

EDIT - additional question - Can you prove that peoples on that forum which are you talking about are neo-nazis?

Please, answer my questions.

Sergey Romanov wrote:Good! Then you can stop with the constant stream of ad hominem libel and start addressing the actual evidence we wrote about. Thank you very much!
I didn´t make any ad hominem, you didn´t quote even one as I requested. No problem, but first, you must show
some evidence, that is what this topic is about, see my three questions and rules below.
Sergey Romanov wrote:Actually, Dr. Nicholas Terry is also a member of THHP, and he has this great article on their site:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro- ... orts.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The HC team is proud to include members of and cooperate with the THHP team.
H-H.org is also backed up by Nick Terry, another member of your blog? Interesting. Are there some other members of your blog which are also behind the H-H.org?
Sergey Romanov wrote:The Holocaust History Project is a well-known and credible site, its members helped Dr. Lipstadt's defense team during the Irving v. Lipstadt trial (as has been acknowledged, for example, in Prof. van Pelt's book on the trial) and they published articles in peer-reviewed journals, like Yad Vashem Studies and Holocaust and Genocide Studies.
5)Appel to authority, or can you prove that is "well-know as credible site?

6)Isn´t correct that some members helped Lipstadt, Pelt etc. and not the H-H.org site itself?

7)What members helped Lipstadt in that trial?

8)What articles? Who wrote them?

Please, answer my questions.

Ok, einsatzgruppen, quote something regarding my questions, thanks.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:34 pm

Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:
Instead of addressing the arguments put out in the HC critique, you choose to quote someone else's fact-free libel. That's ad hominem. Look it up.
Instead of adressing what arguments? I don´t see any arguments here, only link to article on your blog
Of course, pretending that the 570pp. critique the HC team has released and which is available for download from http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... caust.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has no arguments, destroys whatever credibility you might have had in the first place. That is, aside from the ad hominem arguments your spread despite your plea for "no ad hominem" arguments.
Why this ARC source is not credible and your controversies blog is credible?
I thought above you wrote "I will no more adress your claims regarding you personal conflicts with other peoples or projects". Of course, I never expected you to follow up on that, but still :lol:

I gave the links to the articles with verifiable facts about the ARC situation. The events at ARC didn't happen in a vacuum and can be testified to by various parties involved. Also, all the e-mail archives are still intact, and can be quoted with the headers, etc. The falsifications at the ARC site can be looked at through the Wayback Machine. Meanwhile, the anonymous sockpuppets don't present any facts whatsoever. And you haven't presented any facts to show that ARC (as currently run by the two fellows about which I write) is credible.

Moreover, as I have pointed out, our critique has been recommended by THHP (a credible source). That's all that matters for the purposes of this thread, which is evidence for the gassings.
If I got it correctly, saying no negative things (if you are telling truth) about deniers does make from someone a "fellow of deniers" or "maybe a denier" even when that someone is member of orthodox holocaust site or is believer?
Not a bright one, huh? Posting at the neo-Nazi/Holocaust denial forum with the sole purpose of beating up on an anti-denial blog, while being friendly with neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers at the same forum, is absolutely being a Holocaust deniers' fellow traveler.
I didn´t make any ad hominem, you didn´t quote even one as I requested.
False! Here it is again: your use of the fact-free "warning" which doesn't provide any substance and doesn't come from a credible source while not addressing the arguments of the HC team constitutes an ad hominem argument. It's not that difficult to understand, my dear Bob.
Appel to authority, or can you prove that is "well-know as credible site?
Oh, it doesn't actually need serious proof, no more than "Sun rises in the East". I do wish you to beclown yourself by arguing that The Holocaust History Project is suddenly not credible. Still, I did give a specific ref too: van Pelt's book Case for Auschwitz. Cf. p. 498, for example.

So, you broke your promise in regard to not discussing the irrelevant issues (that you brought up in the first place), but maybe it's time to stop the stream of ad hominem arguments and actually start engaging the real arguments? (I'm not holding my breath.)

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:53 pm

Sergey Romanov wrote:Of course, pretending that the 570pp. critique the HC team has released and which is available for download from http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... caust.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has no arguments, destroys whatever credibility you might have had in the first place. That is, aside from the ad hominem arguments your spread despite your plea for "no ad hominem" arguments.
This is untrue and strawman, I didn´t say that you don´t have argument in this article nor did I pretend it, I said that I didn´t see them or find them:
Bob wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:36 am
"I am familiar with this article, but despite that article, I placed my questions anyway which means that I still didn´see answer."

Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:47 pm
"I already mentioned that I know materials which you already provided me, but placed my questions anyway, this mean that I still didn´t find answers to my questions"

Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:02 pm
"I also don´t see any arguments here, you must quote them from article, I didn´t see answers to my questions in your article.".
Your claim "pretending that the[...]has no arguments" is thus untrue, I din´t say it.

Sergey Romanov wrote:I thought above you wrote "I will no more adress your claims regarding you personal conflicts with other peoples or projects". Of course, I never expected you to follow up on that, but still :lol:

I gave the links to the articles with verifiable facts about the ARC situation. The events at ARC didn't happen in a vacuum and can be testified to by various parties involved. Also, all the e-mail archives are still intact, and can be quoted with the headers, etc. The falsifications at the ARC site can be looked at through the Wayback Machine. Meanwhile, the anonymous sockpuppets don't present any facts whatsoever. And you haven't presented any facts to show that ARC (as currently run by the two fellows about which I write) is credible.
Yes, but this isn´t about background of your conflict, but about credibility of sources, you claim that they aren´t credible and on the other side that you are credible.

9)I presented to you links (HW forum) as a response to your links (HC blog), can you tell me why your links are credible and the links with different views aren´t credible?

10)How can you prove who is honest regarding the credibility of sources (HC) or (HW) so I can start to believe you when you claim that ARC is not credible?

Answer me please.

Sergey Romanov wrote:Moreover, as I have pointed out, our critique has been recommended by THHP (a credible source). That's all that matters for the purposes of this thread, which is evidence for the gassings.
And I alread responded you about this recommendation.
Sergey Romanov wrote:Not a bright one, huh? Posting at the neo-Nazi/Holocaust denial forum with the sole purpose of beating up on an anti-denial blog, while being friendly with neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers at the same forum, is absolutely being a Holocaust deniers' fellow traveler.
Can you please adress my direct questions one by one? No dodging please.
Sergey Romanov wrote:False! Here it is again: your use of the fact-free "warning" which doesn't provide any substance and doesn't come from a credible source while not addressing the arguments of the HC team constitutes an ad hominem argument. It's not that difficult to understand, my dear Bob.
I didn´t use that warning as argument, I only asked if Matthew know about existence of this warning. Your claim is untrue, see:
Bob wrote:
Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 am]
Regarding the above article, are you familiar with this warning?
As you can see, I did not say anything about about content or what I or Matthew think about it, only if he know about existence of that warning. I will not adress future comments about this issue, I already adressed it completely, your claims are utrue as prove my quotations, if you don´t agree, read my earlier comments again.
Sergey Romanov wrote:Oh, it doesn't actually need serious proof, no more than "Sun rises in the East". I do wish you to beclown yourself by arguing that The Holocaust History Project is suddenly not credible. Still, I did give a specific ref too: van Pelt's book Case for Auschwitz. Cf. p. 498, for example.
So the crebility is as sure as that "Sun rises in the East"?

5)But I wanted to know if you can prove it, can you?

11)Where I wrote that H-H is not credible, can you quote me?

I wanted to know if you can prove credibility, and this not imply that H-H is not credible, logical.

12)Can you provide me with quote from Pelt´s book which prove well-known credibility of H-H.org?
Sergey Romanov wrote:So, you broke your promise in regard to not discussing the irrelevant issues (that you brought up in the first place), but maybe it's time to stop the stream of ad hominem arguments and actually start engaging the real arguments? (I'm not holding my breath.)
That promise was in connection with bacground of your personal conflicts, and as I promised, I didn´t adressed anyhing of that kind, I adressed claim about no credibility of ARC as a source for information, that is different.

Please, answer my questions. Also answer my questions 1-8, no dodging please, there are 12 questions, answer them one by one.

Yes, we can start, but first, you must provide me with some proof, I don´t see anything here, only links to whole articles where I don´t see any answers on my questions and you didn´t quoted anything here from that articles. I requested to quote them as I said in my first post:
Bob wrote:
Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 am
Please, try to choose only the best proofs and if possible, quote directly every source or information which you would like to show me instead of sending link on whole books, whole long articles and etc.
You read it, you know it, please, follow my rules or you can leave the thread.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:06 pm

Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:Of course, pretending that the 570pp. critique the HC team has released and which is available for download from http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... caust.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has no arguments, destroys whatever credibility you might have had in the first place. That is, aside from the ad hominem arguments your spread despite your plea for "no ad hominem" arguments.
This is untrue and strawman, I didn´t say that you don´t have argument in this article nor did I pretend it, I said that I didn´t see them or find them:
LOL. I think this one can go without further comment.
Yes, but this isn´t about background of your conflict, but about credibility of sources, you claim that they aren´t credible and on the other side that you are credible.
But of course, it is about the conflict, and don't pretend otherwise.
I presented to you links (HW forum) as a response to your links (HC blog), can you tell me why your links are credible and the links with different views aren´t credible?
I have already shown that, and you ignored it. And moreover, it's up to you to show that the libellous links you have posted are credible.
Sergey Romanov wrote:And I alread responded you about this recommendation.
And I have responded to the response.

Sergey Romanov wrote:Not a bright one, huh? Posting at the neo-Nazi/Holocaust denial forum with the sole purpose of beating up on an anti-denial blog, while being friendly with neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers at the same forum, is absolutely being a Holocaust deniers' fellow traveler.
Can you please adress my direct questions one by one? No dodging please.
I don't have to play by your rules.
Sergey Romanov wrote:False! Here it is again: your use of the fact-free "warning" which doesn't provide any substance and doesn't come from a credible source while not addressing the arguments of the HC team constitutes an ad hominem argument. It's not that difficult to understand, my dear Bob.
I didn´t use that warning as argument,
Of course you did, bringing up that fact-free libel is otherwise irrelevant, unless it's an (ad hominem) argument against the critique's credibility. That you're now denying even the immediately verifiable fact that you used it as an argument shows that you will deny anything and there's not much reason to engage you in a fact-based debate.
I wanted to know if you can prove credibility, and this not imply that H-H is not credible, logical.
But THHP's credibility doesn't need further proof to those who know the topic at all.
12)Can you provide me with quote from Pelt´s book which prove well-known credibility of H-H.org?
Yes, I can. But I won't. I'm afraid, you will have to go to the library. Why should I make life easier for you? I gave you the exact reference. Off you go! :lol:

As to the rest of the tripe, who says anyone will be playing by your rules? Read the whole critique and answer the arguments. That's all.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Nessie » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:14 pm

Bob wrote:Hello,

I think that this is a good place for my questions.

1)Can you show me proof or proofs, that Jews were gassed in nazi gas chambers?
2)Can you show me proof or proofs, that nazis had policy to physically exterminate all Jews?
3)Can you show me proof or proofs that nazis physically exterminated six million Jews and additional five or six million non-Jews?

Please, try to choose only the best proofs and if possible, quote directly every source or information which you would like to show me instead of sending link on whole books, whole long articles and etc.

.......
Being new to this debate I find it puzzling why the above questions are not easily answered, so pulling the rug from under the denier's feet a long time ago so threads like this would never even get started.

The bulk of my history at university was on the causes and consequences of WWII, so my knowledge of The Holocaust was down to the likes of the documentary series 'World At War' and vists to the Imperial War Museum in London and Ann Frank's House. Since graduating the actual events of the War have become of more interest to me. I was certainly of the opinion that the details of The Holocaust such as the gas chambers and the millions of Jews killed were absolute truths with a ton of evidence to back it up.

Why is this evidence not being used more effectively to make denial virtually impossible?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:17 pm

Nessie wrote:Why is this evidence not being used more effectively to make denial virtually impossible?
There is no way to make denial virtually impossible, no matter the amount of evidence.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Nessie » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:17 pm

Sergey Romanov wrote:
Nessie wrote:Why is this evidence not being used more effectively to make denial virtually impossible?
There is no way to make denial virtually impossible, no matter the amount of evidence.
I accept that, but why is it not an easy excercise in answering Bob's opening questions?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:19 pm

His first 2 questions have been answered in the critique to which the link has been given.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:24 pm

Sergey Romanov wrote:But of course, it is about the conflict, and don't pretend otherwise.
No, it is about source credibility not about your personal conflict which don´t interest me, my questions 9 and 10 were placed, please answer them.
Sergey Romanov wrote:I have already shown that, and you ignored it. And moreover, it's up to you to show that the libellous links you have posted are credible.
13) Where did you show proof of credibility of HControversiesblog as you are claiming now? You wrote about credibility of H-H.org, not HCblog or did I missed something?

I don´t need to prove anything since I am not the one who claim who is credible and who not, you repeteadly claim that HCblog is credible (you allegedly showed proof) and HWforum and ARC are not credible, so I asked for proof why HCblog is credible and the others not, simple, see questions 9 and 10, they are clear. If you don´t agree, please quote me where I did state who is credible and who is not credible, thanks.
Sergey Romanov wrote:And I have responded to the response.
Yes and questions 5,6,7,8 are awaiting your response.

Sergey Romanov wrote:I don't have to play by your rules.
Of course, you don´t have to. So you can´t or don´t want to answer all (now 13, except for the main three question in the first post) questions adressed to you, right?
Sergey Romanov wrote:
Bob wrote:I didn´t use that warning as argument,
Of course you did, bringing up that fact-free libel is otherwise irrelevant, unless it's an (ad hominem) argument against the critique's credibility. That you're now denying even the immediately verifiable fact that you used it as an argument shows that you will deny anything and there's not much reason to engage you in a fact-based debate.

I cannot accept this dishonest quoting, please, when you quote me, quote whole relevant context, I don´t mean whole thread of course, but whole text which you would like to adress since the meanings could be much different, see here:
Bob wrote:I didn´t use that warning as argument, I only asked if Matthew know about existence of this warning. Your claim is untrue, see:

Bob wrote:
Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 am
Regarding the above article, are you familiar with this warning?
This is correct quote, not only first part of the first sentece, but whole context which prove you are wrong.
Sergey Romanov wrote:But THHP's credibility doesn't need further proof to those who know the topic at all.
You are using logical "Fallacy of false cause" it means "who know the topic also know that H-H.org is well know credible site, so who think opposite doesn´t know the topic"

Another appel to authority or can you please answer my question number 5?
Sergey Romanov wrote:Yes, I can. But I won't. I'm afraid, you will have to go to the library. Why should I make life easier for you? I gave you the exact reference. Off you go! :lol:
It looks like you can´t because you would did it already, so you can´t and not you "won´t". But try to change your mind and answer this question 12, I would be glad, thanks.
Sergey Romanov wrote:As to the rest of the tripe, who says anyone will be playing by your rules? Read the whole critique and answer the arguments. That's all.
Of course nobody, but if you don´t want to answer the questions, if you don´t want to quote proofs from your article or sources, we have nothing to talking about, I will not read your article again, I already know it and placed questions anyway. Regarding your quote, I don´t know why you joined this thread. (rhetorical question)
Nessie wrote:Being new to this debate I find it puzzling why the above questions are not easily answered, so pulling the rug from under the denier's feet a long time ago so threads like this would never even get started.

The bulk of my history at university was on the causes and consequences of WWII, so my knowledge of The Holocaust was down to the likes of the documentary series 'World At War' and vists to the Imperial War Museum in London and Ann Frank's House. Since graduating the actual events of the War have become of more interest to me. I was certainly of the opinion that the details of The Holocaust such as the gas chambers and the millions of Jews killed were absolute truths with a ton of evidence to back it up.

Why is this evidence not being used more effectively to make denial virtually impossible?
Hello, please, if you want, can you answer these questions since you wrote about ton of evidence and absolute truth?. Thanks.

Sergey Romanov wrote:His first 2 questions have been answered in the critique to which the link has been given.
Good, but you missed my second comment, see below.
Bob wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:36 am
I am familiar with this article, but despite that article, I placed my questions anyway which means that I still didn´see answer.
If you want, quote the alleged answers to my questions from your article, quote that proofs, thanks.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:38 pm

Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:But of course, it is about the conflict, and don't pretend otherwise.
No, it is about source credibility not about your personal conflict which don´t interest me
Since no links that you have posted are relevant to the critique's credibility, it's all the more clear what you're up to.

Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:I have already shown that, and you ignored it. And moreover, it's up to you to show that the libellous links you have posted are credible.
13) Where did you show proof of credibility of HControversiesblog as you are claiming now? You wrote about credibility of H-H.org, not HCblog or did I missed something?
No, I have also written about the credibility of the posts detailing the ARC situation, and about the credibility of HC in general.


Bob wrote:I don´t need to prove anything since I am not the one who claim who is credible and who not
Yes, you have to prove that the libellous links you have posted are credible. If you don't stand by those links, there is no reason to post them.


Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:
Bob wrote:I didn´t use that warning as argument,
Of course you did, bringing up that fact-free libel is otherwise irrelevant, unless it's an (ad hominem) argument against the critique's credibility. That you're now denying even the immediately verifiable fact that you used it as an argument shows that you will deny anything and there's not much reason to engage you in a fact-based debate.

I cannot accept this dishonest quoting, please, when you quote me, quote whole relevant context, I don´t mean whole thread of course, but whole text which you would like to adress since the meanings could be much different, see here:
I don't care about what you can or cannot accept. You posted the links as an implicit ad hominem argument and now refuse to own up to your action. Quite cowardly.
Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:Yes, I can. But I won't. I'm afraid, you will have to go to the library. Why should I make life easier for you? I gave you the exact reference. Off you go! :lol:
It looks like you can´t because you would did it already
Um, no, that's not logical. I don't have to provide full quotes for you. I gave you a proper ref, go look it up.
Bob wrote:Of course nobody, but if you don´t want to answer the questions, if you don´t want to quote proofs from your article or sources, we have nothing to talking about, I will not read your article again, I already know it and placed questions anyway. Regarding your quote, I don´t know why you joined this thread. (rhetorical question)
Your first two questions have been answered in the critique. You're now free to read it.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Nessie » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:57 pm

Bob wrote:
......
Nessie wrote:Being new to this debate I find it puzzling why the above questions are not easily answered, so pulling the rug from under the denier's feet a long time ago so threads like this would never even get started.

The bulk of my history at university was on the causes and consequences of WWII, so my knowledge of The Holocaust was down to the likes of the documentary series 'World At War' and vists to the Imperial War Museum in London and Ann Frank's House. Since graduating the actual events of the War have become of more interest to me. I was certainly of the opinion that the details of The Holocaust such as the gas chambers and the millions of Jews killed were absolute truths with a ton of evidence to back it up.

Why is this evidence not being used more effectively to make denial virtually impossible?
Hello, please, if you want, can you answer these questions since you wrote about ton of evidence and absolute truth?. Thanks.


........
I think you misunderstand, my position is that the certainty of The Holocaust as presented to me before is now in some doubt in my mind. But I will offer my answers to your questions.

1)Can you show me proof or proofs, that Jews were gassed in nazi gas chambers?

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ntro.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


2)Can you show me proof or proofs, that nazis had policy to physically exterminate all Jews?

Not to exterminate all Jews, expulsion was also an option, but the presence of so many death camps and the overall treatment of Jews there shows at the very least an utter disregard for Jewish life,


3)Can you show me proof or proofs that nazis physically exterminated six million Jews and additional five or six million non-Jews?

No, because the actual number was far less than that.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:01 pm

*eyeroll*

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:17 pm

Sergey Romanov wrote:Since no links that you have posted are relevant to the critique's credibility, it's all the more clear what you're up to.
No, I am not interested in your personal life and conflicts.

Sergey Romanov wrote:
Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:I have already shown that, and you ignored it. And moreover, it's up to you to show that the libellous links you have posted are credible.
13) Where did you show proof of credibility of HControversiesblog as you are claiming now? You wrote about credibility of H-H.org, not HCblog or did I missed something?
No, I have also written about the credibility of the posts detailing the ARC situation, and about the credibility of HC in general.
13)Where? Quote it or show me date/time of comment which deal with proof that HCblog is credible source.

All what you have provided for that issue is only link to HCblog articles, so the proof of credibility of HCblog are articles from HCblog? Well, interesting. Do you have some proof which isn´t based on your own claims?
Sergey Romanov wrote:
Bob wrote:I don´t need to prove anything since I am not the one who claim who is credible and who not
Yes, you have to prove that the libellous links you have posted are credible. If you don't stand by those links, there is no reason to post them.
But I don´t care if the links are credible or not since I am not the one who make claims about someone´s credibility. You clearly wroted, that you are credible and they not, ok, so they aren´t credible according to you so prove it, simple, where is problem. See my questions and naswer.


Sergey Romanov wrote:I don't care about what you can or cannot accept. You posted the links as an implicit ad hominem argument and now refuse to own up to your action. Quite cowardly.
Posted links were ad hominem, hm, hm, I am afraid that you are not familiar with definition and meaning of that word despite the definition you have posted and you over used this term, never mind. I see only your ad hominems here and you did it again.
Sergey Romanov wrote:Um, no, that's not logical. I don't have to provide full quotes for you. I gave you a proper ref, go look it up.
I said in my first post "if possible, quote source", you admit, that you can quote but you won´t, it means to me that you can´t prove what you claim since you obviously can spend lot of time with writing how you don´t want to quote it for me, but you don´t have a few seconds to simple quote your source and end debate regarding alleged well known credibility of H-H.org.

Sergey Romanov wrote:Your first two questions have been answered in the critique. You're now free to read it.
I have already (repeatedly) wrote, that I have read it, but don´t see any answer. You also don´t want to quote anything from it.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:28 pm

Bob wrote:No, I am not interested in your personal life and conflicts.
Then, pretty simply, refrain from posting links to sites that libel me and my friends.

Bob wrote:Where? Quote it or show me date/time of comment which deal with proof that HCblog is credible source.
Uh, you see, you ignored all requests for showing the credibility of the libellous links you posted, so I'm not gonna start honoring your requests all of a sudden. The burden of proof is on you.
But I don´t care if the links are credible or not since I am not the one who make claims about someone´s credibility.
You are the one who posted the links. Own up to it.

Sergey Romanov wrote:Um, no, that's not logical. I don't have to provide full quotes for you. I gave you a proper ref, go look it up.
I said in my first post "if possible, quote source", you admit, that you can quote but you won´t, it means to me that you can´t prove what you claim
Non sequitur. I gave you a proper ref, go look it up.
I have already (repeatedly) wrote, that I have read it, but don´t see any answer. You also don´t want to quote anything from it.
I gave the link to the critique, of course I'm not gonna start quoting it. It's 570pp. Deal with it.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:52 pm

Sergey Romanov wrote:
Bob wrote:No, I am not interested in your personal life and conflicts.
Then, pretty simply, refrain from posting links to sites that libel me and my friends.
Then simply don´t start debate about it in my thread. (Please, don´t try to accuse me for it with using of that warning)
Sergey Romanov wrote:Uh, you see, you ignored all requests for showing the credibility of the libellous links you posted, so I'm not gonna start honoring your requests all of a sudden. The burden of proof is on you.
I am not the one who claim who is credible and who not. You also didn´t provide me with quote where I allegedly said it. I don´t care if HWforum is creible, topic is about three main questions. You are making claims who is and who is not credible, the burden of proof is on you.
Sergey Romanov wrote:You are the one who posted the links. Own up to it.
Yes, i posted it, but I didn´t say anything about credibility of that source and similarly about your HCblog, you said, you are credible and they not, ok, good, so prove it.
Sergey Romanov wrote:Um, no, that's not logical. I don't have to provide full quotes for you. I gave you a proper ref, go look it up.
Ok, so no answer on question 12
Sergey Romanov wrote:Non sequitur. I gave you a proper ref, go look it up.
You can quote but you don´t want, i don´t know what you are hiding. Of course, isn´t possible to quote every source, I also didn´t say that I want see every source, but as I wrote in my first post "if possible, quote it", you admited you can, but you refuse to provide quotation, never mind, I respect it. So no answer on question 12.
Sergey Romanov wrote:Deal with it.
I alread dealt with it = no answers to my questions, anyway thank you for your effort.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:04 pm

Nessie wrote: I think you misunderstand, my position is that the certainty of The Holocaust as presented to me before is now in some doubt in my mind. But I will offer my answers to your questions.

1)Can you show me proof or proofs, that Jews were gassed in nazi gas chambers?

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ntro.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


2)Can you show me proof or proofs, that nazis had policy to physically exterminate all Jews?

Not to exterminate all Jews, expulsion was also an option, but the presence of so many death camps and the overall treatment of Jews there shows at the very least an utter disregard for Jewish life,


3)Can you show me proof or proofs that nazis physically exterminated six million Jews and additional five or six million non-Jews?

No, because the actual number was far less than that.
I am sorry for that, I didn´t know that you have doubts and aren´t 100% believer (is this correct?) and I propably didn´t understand it when I have read your comment.

Anyway thanks for you answers, you are the first.

1)Can you provide me with proof from that article if possible? Maybe photo of some hole which were identified as introduction hole for Zyklon B? Because I know this article, but don´t see proofs.

2)Ok, presence of "death camps", can you prove that camps were "death camps"? Do you have some proof?

3)Ok, your answer is "six million were not exterminated, number is much lower". Ok, I agree with lower number and no discussion here, but can you provide me with proof that even your lower number of Jews was exterminated? I understand that extemrinated mean murder, plan to murder, that somebody had policy to do it, do you have proof?

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:09 pm

Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:
Bob wrote:No, I am not interested in your personal life and conflicts.
Then, pretty simply, refrain from posting links to sites that libel me and my friends.
Then simply don´t start debate about it in my thread. (Please, don´t try to accuse me for it with using of that warning)
LOL. You're not a boss here and you started the "debate" by posting libel.

Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:Uh, you see, you ignored all requests for showing the credibility of the libellous links you posted, so I'm not gonna start honoring your requests all of a sudden. The burden of proof is on you.
I am not the one who claim who is credible and who not.
You posted libellous links as if they were credible. You don't have to actually explicitly "say" they're credible. You automatically claimed they're credible by posting them as a response to the link to the critique. That's how it works, buddy.
You can quote but you don´t want, i don´t know what you are hiding.
Oh, but you don't have to speculate about whether I'm hiding anything. I gave you the proper ref. Go look it up.


I alread dealt with it = no answers to my questions
It answers your questions 1 and 2. You have not dealt with it. Deal with it.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:35 pm

Sergey Romanov wrote:LOL. You're not a boss here and you started the "debate" by posting libel.
I am not a boss, but I started this thread about concrete subject, if you want to fill up the thread with offtopic debate, please, choose someone´s else topic or different forum, thanks. I did not start this debate and already beg you not to accuse me, and you did it anyway.
Sergey Romanov wrote:You posted libellous links as if they were credible. You don't have to actually explicitly "say" they're credible. You automatically claimed they're credible by posting them as a response to the link to the critique. That's how it works, buddy.
You posted libellous links as if they were credible." this is only your speculative claim and strawman. What critique? The links to HWblog were posted on Jan 11, 2012 12:47 pm as response to your allegedly credible links from HCblog from Jan 11, 2012 11:40 am. The both links are the same, I don´t know nothing about their credibility, you made claims about credibility and refused to answer challenges regarding these claims. "You automatically claimed they're credible" this serious or did I missed something? Also, please, don´t call me buddy, I am not your buddy, I don´t know you, please, be polite thanks.

"You don't have to actually explicitly "say" they're credible" - finally, thanks for admiting that I did not say anything like that, end.
Sergey Romanov wrote:It answers your questions 1 and 2. You have not dealt with it. Deal with it.
I am not sure what is your problem with following my comments, but I have already said, that I have already dealt with it long time ago. Your statement cannot change it, no answers, but anyway thanks for your effort.

Edit -I forgot this
Sergey Romanov wrote:Oh, but you don't have to speculate about whether I'm hiding anything. I gave you the proper ref. Go look it up
I already dealt with it, no answer on question 12, never mind.
Last edited by Bob on Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Nessie » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:36 pm

I am most defintely a believer, my difference is that I find the 'believer' side's inability to give straight and simple answers to denier questions troubling.

Back to the questions.

1 - confessions by Nazis who were there at the camps such as Rudolf Hoess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_H%C3%B6ss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2 - they were death camps because of the conditions inside the camps as evidenced by photographs of the camps; the bodies, the emaciated inmates, the living conditions, the piles of personal property, cannisters of zyklon B. If you want we could call them work camps where people were not treated as a workforce to be cared for or respected and many of whom died.

http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?opt ... ry&catid=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3 - I am still reading up and deciding on a figure for how many Jews died in Nazi occupied territory during WWII. It would appear I am not alone there.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:45 pm

Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:LOL. You're not a boss here and you started the "debate" by posting libel.
I am not a boss, but I started this thread about concrete subject, if you want to fill up the thread with offtopic debate, please, choose someone´s else topic or different forum, thanks. I did not start this debate and already beg you not to accuse me, and you did it anyway.
Sorry, but you started the "debate" by posting libel. You didn't have to respond to each of my comments either. You can stop right now, as a matter of fact.
Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:You posted libellous links as if they were credible. You don't have to actually explicitly "say" they're credible. You automatically claimed they're credible by posting them as a response to the link to the critique. That's how it works, buddy.
You posted libellous links as if they were credible." this is only your speculative claim and strawman. What critique? The links to HWblog were posted on Jan 11, 2012 12:47 pm as response to your allegedly credible links from HCblog from Jan 11, 2012 11:40 am. The both links are the same, I don´t know nothing about their credibility, you made claims about credibility and refused to answer challenges regarding these claims. "You automatically claimed they're credible" this serious or did I missed something? Also, please, don´t call me buddy, I am not your buddy, I don´t know you, please, be polite thanks.
LOL, it's interesting how you run from what you yourself have posted. So you don't think the links are credible, but you posted whole three of them, incl. the one to which I responded initially (which you have posted as an ad hominem response to the link to our critique).
Bob wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote:It answers your questions 1 and 2. You have not dealt with it. Deal with it.
I am not sure what is your problem with following my comments, but I have already said, that I have already dealt with it long time ago. Your statement cannot change it, no answers, but anyway thanks for your effort.
To repeat, the critique answers your questions 1 and 2. It contains evidence of the gassings and it contains evidence of extermination policy. Saying that it doesn't, without actually addressing what is written, won't work. Good luck! :mrgreen:
Sergey Romanov wrote:Oh, but you don't have to speculate about whether I'm hiding anything. I gave you the proper ref. Go look it up
I already dealt with it, no answer on question 12, never mind.
You won't have dealt with until you have actually checked out the reference. You haven't, so you haven't.
Last edited by Sergey Romanov on Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:47 pm

Nessie wrote:I am most defintely a believer, my difference is that I find the 'believer' side's inability to give straight and simple answers to denier questions troubling.
The answers have been given time and again. Whose fault is it that Holocaust deniers are too dumb to accept facts?
2 - they were death camps because of the conditions inside the camps as evidenced by photographs of the camps; the bodies, the emaciated inmates, the living conditions, the piles of personal property, cannisters of zyklon B. If you want we could call them work camps where people were not treated as a workforce to be cared for or respected and many of whom died.
That's not actually what is usually meant by death camps.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:48 pm

Nessie wrote:I am most defintely a believer, my difference is that I find the 'believer' side's inability to give straight and simple answers to denier questions troubling.

Back to the questions.

1 - confessions by Nazis who were there at the camps such as Rudolf Hoess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_H%C3%B6ss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can you quote what he confessed?
Was he tortured?
Nessie wrote:2 - they were death camps because of the conditions inside the camps as evidenced by photographs of the camps; the bodies, the emaciated inmates, the living conditions, the piles of personal property, cannisters of zyklon B. If you want we could call them work camps where people were not treated as a workforce to be cared for or respected and many of whom died.

http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?opt ... ry&catid=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Every camp with bad conditions is deathcamp?
Were the bad conditions in these camps during the whole war?
Can you show me photograph of bodies from Auschwitz from your link?
Can you show me photograph of emaciated inmates from Auschwitz from your link?
Can you show me photograph of living conditions from Auschwitz from your link?
Or do you speak about different camps? Name it please.
How the personal property of inmates prove that the owners of these things were murdered and in the gas chambers?
How the cans of Zyklon B prove gassing of peoples in the gas chambers? I think that Zyklon B was used for delousing around the world.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:59 pm

Mr. Romanov, your comments repeats itslef and discussion with you is more and more time consuming without seeing light in the end of tunnel, you did not contributed with any proof. Try to read all of my posts again, I haven´t enough time to write again and again the same responses to your repeating claims, this leads nowhere, also you still attack me and as i said, I am not fan of this kind of behavior, thanks for understanding and respect it, thanks.
1) If I got it correctly, saying no negative things (if you are telling truth) about deniers does make from someone a "fellow of deniers" or "maybe a denier" even when that someone is member of orthodox holocaust site or is believer?

2) One of the requirement for not being "fellow of deniers" or not being "maybe a denier" is to say negative things about them?

3) All family members, friends and etc. of that someone are in advance "fellows of deniers" or "maybe a deniers" when thay don´t say negative things about their relatives and when they are friendly with them.

4) Is this the case only of deniers or do you apply this logic everytime, for example "saying no negative things about Sergey Romanov does make someone a "fellow of Sergey Romanov" or "maybe he agree with Sergey Romanov"?

5)Appel to authority, or can you prove that is "well-know as credible site?

6)Isn´t correct that some members helped Lipstadt, Pelt etc. and not the H-H.org site itself?

7)What members helped Lipstadt in that trial?

8)What articles? Who wrote them?

9)I presented to you links (HW forum) as a response to your links (HC blog), can you tell me why your links are credible and the links with different views aren´t credible?

10)How can you prove who is honest regarding the credibility of sources (HC) or (HW) so I can start to believe you when you claim that ARC is not credible?

11)Where I wrote that H-H is not credible, can you quote me?

12)Can you provide me with quote from Pelt´s book which prove well-known credibility of H-H.org?

13) Where did you show proof of credibility of HControversiesblog as you are claiming now? You wrote about credibility of H-H.org, not HCblog or did I missed something?
Here I summarized all questions adressed to you which you refused to answer, that´s all what I can do for you, now you see it clearly. If you want, adress it together with main questions, if you don´t want, simply don´t reply to my comments since there is nothing what I can discuss with you, simple. Thanks.

Sergey Romanov
Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:16 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Sergey Romanov » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:02 pm

LOL, you simply reiterated the questions to which I responded, yet you have never addressed the main points I made. Whatever.

Here is the work that answers your questions 1 and 2 (in the OP):

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... caust.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:05 pm

bob...

this is a very silly game youre playing.....

you have been offered evidence to answer your questions yet youre refusing to read it, its nobodies job to convince you either way, nor is it anyones job to go through tons of evidence to find exact quotes etc that youre asking for.

there is obviously tons and tons of evidence and documents for both sides of the argument, its up to YOU and YOU only to read up as much as possible and check the sources for credibility then decide for yourself which holds most weight....

you are asking for things then refusing to look at them and also questioning them which is just silly.

also when offered evidence like zyklon for example, you then go on to say how does that prove gassing... what you are asking for is impossible without a time machine, nobody on this earth can actually take you back in time to the camps and show you first hand what happened, nor can we go there and exhume the sites and dna test evrything to your satisfaction, what youre asking for is akin to asking for proof positive or negaitive of god or santa.

read up on the available evidence yourself and stop being silly.

thanks

rich

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Bob » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:19 pm

RICH-ENGLAND wrote:bob...

this is a very silly game youre playing.....

you have been offered evidence to answer your questions yet youre refusing to read it, its nobodies job to convince you either way, nor is it anyones job to go through tons of evidence to find exact quotes etc that youre asking for.
You are wrong, I have read it, see my second post:
Bob wrote:I am familiar with this article, but despite that article, I placed my questions anyway which means that I still didn´see answer.
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:there is obviously tons and tons of evidence and documents for both sides of the argument, its up to YOU and YOU only to read up as much as possible and check the sources for credibility then decide for yourself which holds most weight....
I would be content with just one gram of evidence or proof.

RICH-ENGLAND wrote:also when offered evidence like zyklon for example, you then go on to say how does that prove gassing
So you claim that Zyklon B cans prove gassings of peoples?
2 to 3% for homicidal gassing and 97 to 98% for disinfestation purposes.

Pressac, 1989, p. 188
So how the cans itself, which were used in large quantity for delousing, prove gassings?
RICH-ENGLAND wrote:what you are asking for is impossible without a time machine, nobody on this earth can actually take you back in time to the camps and show you first hand what happened, nor can we go there and exhume the sites and dna test evrything to your satisfaction, what youre asking for is akin to asking for proof positive or negaitive of god or santa.
So you claim that is impossible to prove it? I thought that is something cannot be proved, than it did not happen, or did I missed something?
Why isn´t possible to exhume the sites which you are talking about?

Topic isn´t about God or Santa or do you consider this issue as similar to proving of God or Santa?

Please, no ad hominem.

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:35 pm

bob...

again, youre being silly and disengenuous and i think youre doing it on purpose....

go back and re read my post, i have NOT made a single claim whatsoever....

what i am saying is no matter what evidence you get offered you will not be satisfied.

if you think its possible for you to go and exhume the sites of any of the claimed death camps and scientifically test evrything and dna test every piece of human remains you find then check those against any records then feel free to do so.... good luck with that, let me know how you get on?...........

again, i will repeat what i said, its nobody on this sites job to get you quotes or convince you of anything, read up all available evidence, check the sources and decide for yourself.

thanks

rich

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Nessie » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:36 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:I am most defintely a believer, my difference is that I find the 'believer' side's inability to give straight and simple answers to denier questions troubling.

Back to the questions.

1 - confessions by Nazis who were there at the camps such as Rudolf Hoess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_H%C3%B6ss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can you quote what he confessed?
Was he tortured?
Nessie wrote:2 - they were death camps because of the conditions inside the camps as evidenced by photographs of the camps; the bodies, the emaciated inmates, the living conditions, the piles of personal property, cannisters of zyklon B. If you want we could call them work camps where people were not treated as a workforce to be cared for or respected and many of whom died.

http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?opt ... ry&catid=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Every camp with bad conditions is deathcamp?
Were the bad conditions in these camps during the whole war?
Can you show me photograph of bodies from Auschwitz from your link?
Can you show me photograph of emaciated inmates from Auschwitz from your link?
Can you show me photograph of living conditions from Auschwitz from your link?
Or do you speak about different camps? Name it please.
How the personal property of inmates prove that the owners of these things were murdered and in the gas chambers?
How the cans of Zyklon B prove gassing of peoples in the gas chambers? I think that Zyklon B was used for delousing around the world.
More evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_% ... episode%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plenty of eye witness accounts, photographs and films of concentration camps. Then this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/holocaust/5115.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

an eyewitness account at Belsen.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by Nessie » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:40 pm

Bob wrote:
......

I would be content with just one gram of evidence or proof.

........

Then the evidence I have presented to you is easily enough to prove a Holocaust took place where Jews were murdered by Nazis in camps during WWII.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Can you show me some proof/s?

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:47 pm

http://history1900s.about.com/od/holoca ... ctures.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thanks

rich