Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:47 pm

Nessie wrote:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... t_hoax.jpg

It certainly at least creates the impression of anti-semitic, pro Nazi holocaust denial. Indeed most people would take the people pictured to be anti-semitic, pro Nazi holocaust denialists.
Nessie, you mean it seriously? Ok, name the revisionists from this picture to back up your claims, thanks.

And then tell me please, what is more important? The message or the messenger?

Be honest once and adress at least these simple questions when you don´t want to adress the points above.

Nessie posted usual hostile and untrue article against revisionists from wikipedia instead of adressing my points about his false accusation.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:39 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... t_hoax.jpg

It certainly at least creates the impression of anti-semitic, pro Nazi holocaust denial. Indeed most people would take the people pictured to be anti-semitic, pro Nazi holocaust denialists.
Nessie, you mean it seriously? Ok, name the revisionists from this picture to back up your claims, thanks.

Eh? To show the pictured people are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, Holocaust deniers I have to name them? Some are are giving Nazi salutes, some are carrying placards denying the Holocaust and some are in KKK uniform :?

And then tell me please, what is more important? The message or the messenger?

There is no simple straight answer to that and it is entirely down to context to get an answer. If you mean the people in the picture, the answer is both are just as important


Be honest once and adress at least these simple questions when you don´t want to adress the points above.

Nessie posted usual hostile and untrue article against revisionists from wikipedia instead of adressing my points about his false accusation.
Sorry Bob, but Holocaust denial/revisionism is in itself seen as anti-semtic, pro Nazi, Hitler apologism. The Wikipedia article explains that. That denial/revisionism is seen as anti-semitic etc is backed up by the You Tube video and picture I have posted.

But here we go again, you question my honesty, ask question upon question and when I post examples you just dismiss them even though they contain verbal and pictoral evidence of people being anti-semitic, pro Nazi, Hitler apologist, Holocaust revisionist and deniers.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:24 pm

Nessie wrote:Eh? To show the pictured people are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, Holocaust deniers I have to name them? Some are are giving Nazi salutes, some are carrying placards denying the Holocaust and some are in KKK uniform :?
I didn´t want to see peoples in KKK uniform, I wanted to see revisionists which are anti-semitic or neo-nazis as you claimed, you posted this image, so please again, name who are those revisionists, thank you so much again.

Feel free to refresh your memory here if your forgot what you have said.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271338" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nessie wrote:And then tell me please, what is more important? The message or the messenger?

There is no simple straight answer to that and it is entirely down to context to get an answer. If you mean the people in the picture, the answer is both are just as important
Again, what is more important, message or messenger? Simple question, simple answer, this isn´t problem of context, just answer if is important message or messenger. Now it looks that you care about messenger and not about what the messenger have to tell you and what are his arguments/messages.
Nessie wrote:Be honest once and adress at least these simple questions when you don´t want to adress the points above.

Nessie posted usual hostile and untrue article against revisionists from wikipedia instead of adressing my points about his false accusation.

Sorry Bob, but Holocaust denial/revisionism is in itself seen as anti-semtic, pro Nazi, Hitler apologism. The Wikipedia article explains that. That denial/revisionism is seen as anti-semitic etc is backed up by the You Tube video and picture I have posted.
You are not able to explain why is revisionism/revisionists anti semitic/neo nazi according to you or wikipedia. Your video as "backing up" was partly refuted in previous page, in points which you refused to adress, you saw that your claims were exposed as false, but you ignore it, for you the quotes from this video are some kind of evidence anyway no matter that your claims were proved to be false.

Nessie´s or wikipedia logic or claims are absurd and one can only wonder what labels they use for revisionists like David Cole, Josef G. Burg, Roger-Guy Dommergue, Stephen Hayward, Haviv Schieber (All Jews)? What labels for Paul Rassinier, Josef G. Burg (former prisoners of concentration camps)? What labels for Paul Rassinier, Roger Garaudy (communists and socialists)? Nessie or his wikipedia source can tell me what labels are the most suitable for those "anti semites or neonazis" which I listed above.

Nessie just prove that the only strategy which is used against revisionists is ad hominem, where is lack of arguments, the ad hominems strategy come.
Nessie wrote:But here we go again, you question my honesty, ask question upon question and when I post examples you just dismiss them even though they contain verbal and pictoral evidence of people being anti-semitic, pro Nazi, Hitler apologist, Holocaust revisionist and deniers.
Nessie is wrong as usual, I placed questions, he "answered" but his answers are easily refuted as totally false and absurd, but for Nessie this is bad behavior I guess. Nessie provided fantastic pictoral "evidence" that revisionists are anti semites and neonazis and that they are revisionist because of their anti semitism (sarkasm off), but one can only wonder where the hell he see verbal evidence, can he quote some revisionist´s citation which prove what he claims?

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:02 pm

This is what I said

"Where it falls apart for me is when they come out with anti-semitism, pro-Nazi, Hitler apologist rubbish and when they start to deny there was a Holocaust at all."

I have shown examples of when a revisionist has come out with anti-semitism etc and I have shown an image of when deniers are doing the same. If revisionists or deniers don't come out with anti-semitism etc then fine.

Regarding the messenger/message, the problem is that for many, revisionism/denial is in itself seen as anti-semitic etc. So it does not matter how well the messenger presents themselves or how strong their message is, the whole is seen as a package and it no longer matters to many. Right or wrong, like it or lump it, that is just the way it is for many people. The video does decend into anti-semitism and when it does it the message and messenger are lost as people remember that instead.

That the video is anti-semitic etc is as clear as the nose on your face and I am not in the slightest bit convinced by your claim it is not.

Regarding explaining why is revisionism is seen as anti-semitic according to Wikipedia, well read the article. It does not say revisionism is necessarily anti-semitic etc, it just states it is seen that way. I agree with that, especially after seeing David Cole on You Tube and reading his works. I do not think that to be a revisionsit means you are necessarily anti-semtic etc. That is why I only criticised such when they make anti-semitic etc remarks

I have separated deniers from revisionists and I do think the pictoral evidence of deniers (not revisionists) of the likes of the KKK speaks volumes to show they are anti-semitic etc. But who knows, maybe there is a member of the KKK who is not an anti-semitic, etc denier.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:26 pm

Nessie wrote:This is what I said

"Where it falls apart for me is when they come out with anti-semitism, pro-Nazi, Hitler apologist rubbish and when they start to deny there was a Holocaust at all."

I have shown examples of when a revisionist has come out with anti-semitism etc and I have shown an image of when deniers are doing the same. If revisionists or deniers don't come out with anti-semitism etc then fine.
In the other words, you can´t, ok.
Nessie wrote:Regarding the messenger/message, the problem is that for many, revisionism/denial is in itself seen as anti-semitic etc. So it does not matter how well the messenger presents themselves or how strong their message is, the whole is seen as a package and it no longer matters to many. Right or wrong, like it or lump it, that is just the way it is for many people. The video does decend into anti-semitism and when it does it the message and messenger are lost as people remember that instead.
For Nessie is really important the messenger or some "package" than the actual message, hypothetical - when he meet revisionist who say to him "the Earth is sphere, here are my arguments" he propably dismiss his message because of messenger.
Nessie wrote:That the video is anti-semitic etc is as clear as the nose on your face and I am not in the slightest bit convinced by your claim it is not.
Nessie proved to me that he really ingore everything what is problem for him, he just made his mind and he don´t want to be confused with facts. Yes Nessie, the video is anti semitic, you believe it, so it must be true.
Nessie wrote:Regarding explaining why is revisionism is seen as anti-semitic according to Wikipedia, well read the article. It does not say revisionism is necessarily anti-semitic etc, it just states it is seen that way. I agree with that, especially after seeing David Cole on You Tube and reading his works. I do not think that to be a revisionsit means you are necessarily anti-semtic etc. That is why I only criticised such when they make anti-semitic etc remarks
But Nessie clearly spoke about revisionist in general, no he attempted some damage control to say that some are not necessarily anti semitic, but this clearly prove that claim "holocaust denial is antisemitism" is false. No wonder that he refuse to say what labels are the most suitable for peoples which I listed above. Nessie said - "When" - but did not provide any example "when" revisionist were anti semitic or pro nazi.
Nessie wrote:I have separated deniers from revisionists and I do think the pictoral evidence of deniers (not revisionists) of the likes of the KKK speaks volumes to show they are anti-semitic etc. But who knows, maybe there is a member of the KKK who is not an anti-semitic, etc denier.
Nessie separated them, hm, is Nessie able to tell me what is difference between denier and revisionist?

He called me denier as proved with his quote, is he able to tell me why I am denier and not revisionist?
of the likes of the KKK speaks volumes to show they are anti-semitic etc. But who knows, maybe there is a member of the KKK who is not an anti-semitic, etc denier.
Being anti semite means that you must be against all semite, see your beloved wikipedia here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So, KKK members, deniers, revisionists, whatewher, are against the all semite peoples on the world that you call them anti semites?

How would you label Jew who use hate speech against white peoples? Such a Jew is anti-...neo-...pro-?

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:47 am

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:This is what I said

"Where it falls apart for me is when they come out with anti-semitism, pro-Nazi, Hitler apologist rubbish and when they start to deny there was a Holocaust at all."

I have shown examples of when a revisionist has come out with anti-semitism etc and I have shown an image of when deniers are doing the same. If revisionists or deniers don't come out with anti-semitism etc then fine.
In the other words, you can´t, ok.

That does not make sense
Nessie wrote:Regarding the messenger/message, the problem is that for many, revisionism/denial is in itself seen as anti-semitic etc. So it does not matter how well the messenger presents themselves or how strong their message is, the whole is seen as a package and it no longer matters to many. Right or wrong, like it or lump it, that is just the way it is for many people. The video does decend into anti-semitism and when it does it the message and messenger are lost as people remember that instead.
For Nessie is really important the messenger or some "package" than the actual message, hypothetical - when he meet revisionist who say to him "the Earth is sphere, here are my arguments" he propably dismiss his message because of messenger.

A made up interpretation that is wrong
Nessie wrote:That the video is anti-semitic etc is as clear as the nose on your face and I am not in the slightest bit convinced by your claim it is not.
Nessie proved to me that he really ingore everything what is problem for him, he just made his mind and he don´t want to be confused with facts. Yes Nessie, the video is anti semitic, you believe it, so it must be true.

The comments made are anti-semitic as well as pro Nazi and Hitler apology. I quoted parts of the video as examples earlier in this thread and you ignored them.
Nessie wrote:Regarding explaining why is revisionism is seen as anti-semitic according to Wikipedia, well read the article. It does not say revisionism is necessarily anti-semitic etc, it just states it is seen that way. I agree with that, especially after seeing David Cole on You Tube and reading his works. I do not think that to be a revisionsit means you are necessarily anti-semtic etc. That is why I only criticised such when they make anti-semitic etc remarks
But Nessie clearly spoke about revisionist in general, no he attempted some damage control to say that some are not necessarily anti semitic, but this clearly prove that claim "holocaust denial is antisemitism" is false. No wonder that he refuse to say what labels are the most suitable for peoples which I listed above. Nessie said - "When" - but did not provide any example "when" revisionist were anti semitic or pro nazi.

No I clearly stated when revisionists start anti-semtic etc so it is not in general and I have provided evidence of a revisionist when he has become anti-semtic etc in the video. The when shows the difference. No damage limitation, just pointing out you had not read or had misunderstood my original post. I do not think that revisionism is anti-semitic in itself, I think that denial in the most part is as it is so offensive to the Jews and others.
Nessie wrote:I have separated deniers from revisionists and I do think the pictoral evidence of deniers (not revisionists) of the likes of the KKK speaks volumes to show they are anti-semitic etc. But who knows, maybe there is a member of the KKK who is not an anti-semitic, etc denier.
Nessie separated them, hm, is Nessie able to tell me what is difference between denier and revisionist?

Yes, simply revisionism accepts there was a Holocaust, but questions some of the details such as use of gas chambers and the overall numbers killed. Denial claims no Holocaust happened at all.

He called me denier as proved with his quote, is he able to tell me why I am denier and not revisionist?

I have asked you before and your answer was vague so I am unsure if you are a revisionist or a denier. Which one are you?
of the likes of the KKK speaks volumes to show they are anti-semitic etc. But who knows, maybe there is a member of the KKK who is not an anti-semitic, etc denier.
Being anti semite means that you must be against all semite, see your beloved wikipedia here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So, KKK members, deniers, revisionists, whatewher, are against the all semite peoples on the world that you call them anti semites?

Only the anti-semitic ones are anti-semitic.

How would you label Jew who use hate speech against white peoples? Such a Jew is anti-...neo-...pro-?

Anti-gentile?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by OutOfBreath » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:15 am

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... ow#p268072" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
OutOfBreath wrote:
I think it has been asked before, but I try again:
What exactly of the holocaust is it that you don't believe there is evidence for?
a) that millions of jews and others died ?
b) that it was nazi policy to kill them?
c) that camps existed where they were killed?
d) that gas chambers were used?

Please indicate which of these you have a problem with.

Peace
Dan
Bob wrote: a)I don´t believe it, i didn´t see proof, they aren´t even able to show me how much peoples are missing, and when they don´t know how much peoples are missing, how can they know how much peoples were murdered? Simple I don´t believe it.

b) I didn´t see any proof for this, but I saw plenty of documents which proved policy to move them out, so where is prove of murder? The only argument which they have is only "oh yes, they used code language" so I don´t believe it.

c)This question if wrongly placed. Of course, there existed camps where the peoples were killed, for example for violating rules, they were executed, shot during escape and etc. and etc. this is common practice in every side of the conflict but I don´t believe in plan to murder them to gas them and etc.

d)I don´t believe in nazi gas chambers
I think Bob has shown us quite clearly which of the two he really is.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:21 am

Bob
1 - are you anti-semitic in that you do not like and you mistrust Jews?

2 - are you pro-Nazi in that you believe their National Socialism and Arian views are correct and the world would be better for the Nazis to have won WWII?

3 - are you a Hitler apologist in that you think he is misunderstood, he did not want to casue a war and that he would have made a great European leader?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:48 pm

Nessie wrote:That does not make sense
I agree, you image of KKK doesn´t make sense.
Nessie wrote:For Nessie is really important the messenger or some "package" than the actual message, hypothetical - when he meet revisionist who say to him "the Earth is sphere, here are my arguments" he propably dismiss his message because of messenger.

A made up interpretation that is wrong
Nessie deny what he said a few hours ago, as usual.
Nessie wrote:The comments made are anti-semitic as well as pro Nazi and Hitler apology. I quoted parts of the video as examples earlier in this thread and you ignored them.
Nessie is lying again, here is evidence, I adressed his alleged antisemitic and neonazi quote from video here.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He ignored this refutation, and is lying that I ignored his quotes. I guess, that he is going to accuse me of bad bahavior because I exposed his lie again.
Nessie wrote:No I clearly stated when revisionists start anti-semtic etc so it is not in general and I have provided evidence of a revisionist when he has become anti-semtic etc in the video. The when shows the difference. No damage limitation, just pointing out you had not read or had misunderstood my original post. I do not think that revisionism is anti-semitic in itself, I think that denial in the most part is as it is so offensive to the Jews and others.
Nessie used quotes from video, but I refuted at least one of his alleged anti semitic evidence and he just don´t bother to do own research to find that other of his alleged evidence is wrong too. Finally, Nessie really didn´t show even one example when revisionists are antisemitic or neo-nazi, his video and pictoral "evidence" was flawed.
Nessie wrote:Yes, simply revisionism accepts there was a Holocaust, but questions some of the details such as use of gas chambers and the overall numbers killed. Denial claims no Holocaust happened at all.
I recommend to Nessie to learn basic definition of holocaust, I have been already blamed for believe in holocaust without extermination plan, without gas chambers, without 6 milion and other aspects from local user Rich England (the man with funny dna request). Nessie can look here for comment of one of his companion and the comments which follows, he can start to read this here
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p268175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you can see, you are wrong Nessie, try it again, tell me the difference, because I see no difference. You even don´t know what peoples, which you blame and attack, actually says.
Nessie wrote: have asked you before and your answer was vague so I am unsure if you are a revisionist or a denier. Which one are you?
Where did you ask me? Quote this comment, because I don´t se it.

And I already said "Call me as you wish Nessie.", I don´t care, but I am curious about your definition of denier and revisionists.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p269131" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I already said my position here, in January 19, almost one month ago.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p268201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nessie wrote:Being anti semite means that you must be against all semite, see your beloved wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So, KKK members, deniers, revisionists, whatewher, are against the all semite peoples on the world that you call them anti semites?

Only the anti-semitic ones are anti-semitic.
Hm, can you answer my question please? Don´t dodge it, they are against all semitic peoples that you call them antisemites?

If somebody is against zionists or zionism, he is an antisemite, correct?

Thanks in advance for answers.
Nessie wrote:How would you label Jew who use hate speech against white peoples? Such a Jew is anti-...neo-...pro-?

Anti-gentile?
Thanks, what a great length article in wikipedia, isn´t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigentilism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All what I see is, that the gentiles are responsible for Jewish antigentilism, is that correct? :lol:

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:50 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:That does not make sense
I agree, you image of KKK doesn´t make sense.

No, the image is clear, it was your response which did not make sense.
Nessie wrote:For Nessie is really important the messenger or some "package" than the actual message, hypothetical - when he meet revisionist who say to him "the Earth is sphere, here are my arguments" he propably dismiss his message because of messenger.

A made up interpretation that is wrong
Nessie deny what he said a few hours ago, as usual.

No you have yet again made up an fake interpretation of what I really did say and then criticised that. This is the original exchange;

Bob "And then tell me please, what is more important? The message or the messenger?"

Nessie "There is no simple straight answer to that and it is entirely down to context to get an answer. If you mean the people in the picture, the answer is both are just as important."

So message, messenger both can be important, one can be more important than the other and any other combination you want, it all depends on context.

Nessie wrote:The comments made are anti-semitic as well as pro Nazi and Hitler apology. I quoted parts of the video as examples earlier in this thread and you ignored them.
Nessie is lying again, here is evidence, I adressed his alleged antisemitic and neonazi quote from video here.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He ignored this refutation, and is lying that I ignored his quotes. I guess, that he is going to accuse me of bad bahavior because I exposed his lie again.

Your alleged refutation consists of a series of quotes made by Jews or about Jews against the Nazis. What has that got to do with refuting the anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, Hitker apologist quotes from the video? You keep ignoring them, so here they are again

"It then falls apart for me at 1:05:37 when a list is given of which number one includes "despite politically correct opinion , Hitler did not start the war.....war was forced on him, firstly by the international Zionists....". The Final Solution was "a mutual signed contract with the Zionists to deport Jews to Madagascar", though that is followed by a claim the Jews wanted lots of war victims to gain Palestine. Those at the camps died of disease and in many cases Jews got more food than local Germans to the camps. Apparently many Jews "had enough of being Jewish". "


Nessie wrote:No I clearly stated when revisionists start anti-semtic etc so it is not in general and I have provided evidence of a revisionist when he has become anti-semtic etc in the video. The when shows the difference. No damage limitation, just pointing out you had not read or had misunderstood my original post. I do not think that revisionism is anti-semitic in itself, I think that denial in the most part is as it is so offensive to the Jews and others.
Nessie used quotes from video, but I refuted at least one of his alleged anti semitic evidence and he just don´t bother to do own research to find that other of his alleged evidence is wrong too. Finally, Nessie really didn´t show even one example when revisionists are antisemitic or neo-nazi, his video and pictoral "evidence" was flawed.

The video and picture are not flawed at all. The language, the banners, the hand gestures are clearly anti-semitic etc.
Nessie wrote:Yes, simply revisionism accepts there was a Holocaust, but questions some of the details such as use of gas chambers and the overall numbers killed. Denial claims no Holocaust happened at all.
I recommend to Nessie to learn basic definition of holocaust, I have been already blamed for believe in holocaust without extermination plan, without gas chambers, without 6 milion and other aspects from local user Rich England (the man with funny dna request). Nessie can look here for comment of one of his companion and the comments which follows, he can start to read this here
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p268175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you can see, you are wrong Nessie, try it again, tell me the difference, because I see no difference. You even don´t know what peoples, which you blame and attack, actually says.

I stand by my original definition.
Nessie wrote: have asked you before and your answer was vague so I am unsure if you are a revisionist or a denier. Which one are you?
Where did you ask me? Quote this comment, because I don´t se it.

It is the post you refer to below, where ask clarification questions and you say "I am saying that Holocust is myth". But you speak more of revisionism, so I am not sure where exactly you position yourself.


And I already said "Call me as you wish Nessie.", I don´t care, but I am curious about your definition of denier and revisionists.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p269131" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I already said my position here, in January 19, almost one month ago.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p268201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"But going by the above I would be more inclined to put you in the denier group"
Nessie wrote:Being anti semite means that you must be against all semite, see your beloved wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So, KKK members, deniers, revisionists, whatewher, are against the all semite peoples on the world that you call them anti semites?

Only the anti-semitic ones are anti-semitic.
Hm, can you answer my question please? Don´t dodge it, they are against all semitic peoples that you call them antisemites?

If somebody is against zionists or zionism, he is an antisemite, correct?

Thanks in advance for answers.

I go by the simple dictionary defintion of "an·ti-Sem·ite (nt-smt, nt-)n. One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.". Since Zionism is intrinsically linked to Judaism and Jews, I would say that someone against zionists in that they discriminate, hate or are prejudiced then they are anti-semitic.
Nessie wrote:How would you label Jew who use hate speech against white peoples? Such a Jew is anti-...neo-...pro-?

Anti-gentile?
Thanks, what a great length article in wikipedia, isn´t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigentilism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All what I see is, that the gentiles are responsible for Jewish antigentilism, is that correct? :lol:
You asked for a suggestion of what to call a Jew who hates whites, you got one. How about xenophobic or anti-christian or anti-white?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:43 pm

Nessie wrote:No, the image is clear, it was your response which did not make sense.
My response does make sense since I exposed, that you image is false as back up to your claim, that

"I find that Holocaust revisionists...have no problem when revisionism...Where it falls apart for me is when they come out with anti-semitism, pro-Nazi, Hitler apologist rubbish and when they start to deny there was a Holocaust at all." http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271338" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If your extraordinary personal definition is correct:

"revisionism accepts there was a Holocaust, but questions some of the details such as use of gas chambers and the overall numbers killed. Denial claims no Holocaust happened at all."

It means that these KKK members on your picture...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... t_hoax.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...are deniers and not revisionists, so you are wrong and your picture false, end of story dear Nessie, you did not presented even one example of some anti semitic or neo-nazi revisionist.
Nessie wrote:No you have yet again made up an fake interpretation of what I really did say and then criticised that. This is the original exchange;

Bob "And then tell me please, what is more important? The message or the messenger?"

Nessie "There is no simple straight answer to that and it is entirely down to context to get an answer. If you mean the people in the picture, the answer is both are just as important."

So message, messenger both can be important, one can be more important than the other and any other combination you want, it all depends on context.
Nessie "forgot" (dodged) that he later wrote this: Regarding the messenger/message, the problem is that for many, revisionism/denial is in itself seen as anti-semitic etc. So it does not matter how well the messenger presents themselves or how strong their message is, the whole is seen as a package and it no longer matters to many. Right or wrong, like it or lump it, that is just the way it is for many people. The video does decend into anti-semitism and when it does it the message and messenger are lost as people remember that instead.

Nessie thus lied that I misrepresented him. He clearly said, that it does not matter how strong their message is, it all depend on whole "package and messenger".
Nessie wrote:Your alleged refutation consists of a series of quotes made by Jews or about Jews against the Nazis. What has that got to do with refuting the anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, Hitker apologist quotes from the video? You keep ignoring them, so here they are again

"It then falls apart for me at 1:05:37 when a list is given of which number one includes "despite politically correct opinion , Hitler did not start the war.....war was forced on him...
What Nessie didn´t understand when I refuted his alleged anti semitic or neonazi claims in this post and proved that this is no neonazi invention from the man which is in the video, but opinion based on evidence from which I have shown only a few examples?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nessie still dont bother to do own research to find that he is wrong in the rest of the quotes as well, he is afraid of what he can find.
Nessie wrote:The video and picture are not flawed at all. The language, the banners, the hand gestures are clearly anti-semitic etc.
Language is anti semitic?
Banners are anti semitic?
Hand gestures are anti semitic?

What a interesting group of extraordinary claims from Nessie.
Nessie wrote:I stand by my original definition.
:lol: Nessie just ingore that he is proved to be completely wrong, he just ingore everything what prove that what he say is totally wrong.

Nessie, please, can you write here your original definition of holocaust? I ma reayll interested.
Nessie wrote: have asked you before and your answer was vague so I am unsure if you are a revisionist or a denier. Which one are you?

It is the post you refer to below, where ask clarification questions and you say "I am saying that Holocust is myth". But you speak more of revisionism, so I am not sure where exactly you position yourself.


"But going by the above I would be more inclined to put you in the denier group"
Yes, I said this. I do not label myself with labels, you are the one who use labels to show "who is who", you decide, I don´t care, I am only curious about how did you arrive to your conclusion to see how contradicting and confused you are.
Nessie wrote:I go by the simple dictionary defintion of "an·ti-Sem·ite (nt-smt, nt-)n. One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews."


Very interesting, but as proved by your own source, wikipedia, there are plenty of semitic group of peoples, see again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So how is possible, that anti-semitism means "hostility toward against Jews"? Where is the rest of semitic peoples dear Nessie? If I hate all groups of peoples in wikipedia article above, I am not anti-semitic, but If I am hostile against Jews, I am anti-semite? Explain it to me since you are using this term very often to label peoples as I see.

Nessie wrote:Since Zionism is intrinsically linked to Judaism and Jews, I would say that someone against zionists in that they discriminate, hate or are prejudiced then they are anti-semitic.
So you would say that these peoples are another bunch of anti-semites?
http://www.google.cz/search?tbm=isch&hl ... 34l3.4l7l0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Correct me If I am wrong, but those peoples are Jews, or they are camouflaged neo-nazis from KKK pictorial evidence which you have provided to me?
Nessie wrote:How would you label Jew who use hate speech against white peoples? Such a Jew is anti-...neo-...pro-?

Anti-gentile?

Thanks, what a great length article in wikipedia, isn´t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigentilism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All what I see is, that the gentiles are responsible for Jewish antigentilism, is that correct? :lol:

You asked for a suggestion of what to call a Jew who hates whites, you got one. How about xenophobic or anti-christian or anti-white?
Yes, I got one, but I see that the gentiles are responsible for hostile attitude of Jews against gentiles and wanted to see your explanation. I never saw official proclamation, that anti semitism is caused by the Jews themselves, so I am curious about what you have said to me about this issue, please, explain.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:33 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:No, the image is clear, it was your response which did not make sense.
My response does make sense since I exposed, that you image is false as back up to your claim, that

"I find that Holocaust revisionists...have no problem when revisionism...Where it falls apart for me is when they come out with anti-semitism, pro-Nazi, Hitler apologist rubbish and when they start to deny there was a Holocaust at all." http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271338" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If your extraordinary personal definition is correct:

"revisionism accepts there was a Holocaust, but questions some of the details such as use of gas chambers and the overall numbers killed. Denial claims no Holocaust happened at all."

It means that these KKK members on your picture...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... t_hoax.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...are deniers and not revisionists, so you are wrong and your picture false, end of story dear Nessie, you did not presented even one example of some anti semitic or neo-nazi revisionist.

You misunderstand again, I showed an example of revisionist anti-semitism etc with the video AND denier anti-semitism etc with the KKK photo.
Nessie wrote:No you have yet again made up an fake interpretation of what I really did say and then criticised that. This is the original exchange;

Bob "And then tell me please, what is more important? The message or the messenger?"

Nessie "There is no simple straight answer to that and it is entirely down to context to get an answer. If you mean the people in the picture, the answer is both are just as important."

So message, messenger both can be important, one can be more important than the other and any other combination you want, it all depends on context.
Nessie "forgot" (dodged) that he later wrote this: Regarding the messenger/message, the problem is that for many, revisionism/denial is in itself seen as anti-semitic etc. So it does not matter how well the messenger presents themselves or how strong their message is, the whole is seen as a package and it no longer matters to many. Right or wrong, like it or lump it, that is just the way it is for many people. The video does decend into anti-semitism and when it does it the message and messenger are lost as people remember that instead.

Nessie thus lied that I misrepresented him. He clearly said, that it does not matter how strong their message is, it all depend on whole "package and messenger".

You again misunderstand. My posiiton is that messenger and message can be mixed and matched and it iscontext that is important. Then I gave you an examples (note the plural) of what I mean. One (note the singular) is where both package and messenger are just as important. But in other cases (note the plural) it can be different.
Nessie wrote:Your alleged refutation consists of a series of quotes made by Jews or about Jews against the Nazis. What has that got to do with refuting the anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, Hitker apologist quotes from the video? You keep ignoring them, so here they are again

"It then falls apart for me at 1:05:37 when a list is given of which number one includes "despite politically correct opinion , Hitler did not start the war.....war was forced on him...
What Nessie didn´t understand when I refuted his alleged anti semitic or neonazi claims in this post and proved that this is no neonazi invention from the man which is in the video, but opinion based on evidence from which I have shown only a few examples?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nessie still dont bother to do own research to find that he is wrong in the rest of the quotes as well, he is afraid of what he can find.

Why did you chop the end of the quotes from the video? Here it is again

It then falls apart for me at 1:05:37 when a list is given of which number one includes "despite politically correct opinion , Hitler did not start the war.....war was forced on him, firstly by the international Zionists....". The Final Solution was "a mutual signed contract with the Zionists to deport Jews to Madagascar", though that is followed by a claim the Jews wanted lots of war victims to gain Palestine. Those at the camps died of disease and in many cases Jews got more food than local Germans to the camps. Apparently many Jews "had enough of being Jewish". "

Nothing in your quotes from Jewish organisation sor newspaper headlines refutes the claim war was forced on Hitler by Zionists, the Zionists agreed to the Final Solution, claims about Madagascar, wanting lots of war victims, Jews got more food than Germans and some Jews decided they did not want to be Jews anymore.

What the above shows is an example of revisionism then turning to anti-semitic etc language

Nessie wrote:The video and picture are not flawed at all. The language, the banners, the hand gestures are clearly anti-semitic etc.
Language is anti semitic?
Banners are anti semitic?
Hand gestures are anti semitic?

What a interesting group of extraordinary claims from Nessie.

Making anti-semitic comments, having a banner with an anti-semitic slogan and doing Hitler salutes, yes anti semitic and if you cannot understand that there is no wonder you are unable to understand much of what I have posted here.
Nessie wrote:I stand by my original definition.
:lol: Nessie just ingore that he is proved to be completely wrong, he just ingore everything what prove that what he say is totally wrong.

Nessie, please, can you write here your original definition of holocaust? I ma reayll interested.

Again, you misunderstand, this was about my definition of revisionism and denial, not a definition of the Holocaust.
Nessie wrote: have asked you before and your answer was vague so I am unsure if you are a revisionist or a denier. Which one are you?

It is the post you refer to below, where ask clarification questions and you say "I am saying that Holocust is myth". But you speak more of revisionism, so I am not sure where exactly you position yourself.


"But going by the above I would be more inclined to put you in the denier group"
Yes, I said this. I do not label myself with labels, you are the one who use labels to show "who is who", you decide, I don´t care, I am only curious about how did you arrive to your conclusion to see how contradicting and confused you are.

You have linked yourself to the answers you have given about whether you are a denier or a revisionist. That is how I arrived at my conclusion.
Nessie wrote:I go by the simple dictionary defintion of "an·ti-Sem·ite (nt-smt, nt-)n. One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews."


Very interesting, but as proved by your own source, wikipedia, there are plenty of semitic group of peoples, see again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So how is possible, that anti-semitism means "hostility toward against Jews"? Where is the rest of semitic peoples dear Nessie? If I hate all groups of peoples in wikipedia article above, I am not anti-semitic, but If I am hostile against Jews, I am anti-semite? Explain it to me since you are using this term very often to label peoples as I see.

The dictionary definition of anti-semitism is clear. It is about Jews. If you are hostile about Jews as you put it, you are being anti-semitic.

Nessie wrote:Since Zionism is intrinsically linked to Judaism and Jews, I would say that someone against zionists in that they discriminate, hate or are prejudiced then they are anti-semitic.
So you would say that these peoples are another bunch of anti-semites?
http://www.google.cz/search?tbm=isch&hl ... 34l3.4l7l0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Correct me If I am wrong, but those peoples are Jews, or they are camouflaged neo-nazis from KKK pictorial evidence which you have provided to me?

Israel is a democracy with many different groups, indeed there are many different Jewish groups and some are Zionist and others are not. They often fight amongst each other and do not agree amongst themselves. If two Jews exchange abuse or fight, are they both being anti-semitic? I say no they are not. Anti-semitism is about those who are not Jewish hating, discriminating against or being prejudiced against Jews, Zionism, Israel even.
Nessie wrote:How would you label Jew who use hate speech against white peoples? Such a Jew is anti-...neo-...pro-?

Anti-gentile?

Thanks, what a great length article in wikipedia, isn´t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigentilism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All what I see is, that the gentiles are responsible for Jewish antigentilism, is that correct? :lol:

You asked for a suggestion of what to call a Jew who hates whites, you got one. How about xenophobic or anti-christian or anti-white?
Yes, I got one, but I see that the gentiles are responsible for hostile attitude of Jews against gentiles and wanted to see your explanation. I never saw official proclamation, that anti semitism is caused by the Jews themselves, so I am curious about what you have said to me about this issue, please, explain.

I don't have an explanation for wikipedia's definition. Ask them if you really want to know. I chose the word based on the dictionary definition of Gentile - A person who is not Jewish.
BTW, you have missed post #48. I have been answering your questions for sometime now and putting up with the usual accusations of lying and dodging without resourting to your level of rudeness. So please answer my questions now.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:30 pm

Nessie wrote:You misunderstand again, I showed an example of revisionist anti-semitism etc with the video AND denier anti-semitism etc with the KKK photo.
Video was proved to be false evidence, Nessie ignore it.

About picture, Nessie don´t speak truth again, here is my request:

"Nessie is able to show names of revisionists which are anti-semitic or neo-nazis and that this is the reason why they say what they say and show me some examples?"
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271510" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nessie replied in following comment with his picture

"It certainly at least creates the impression of anti-semitic, pro Nazi holocaust denial. Indeed most people would take the people pictured to be anti-semitic, pro Nazi holocaust denialists."
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271523" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One can only wonder why Nessie provided this picture. Now he want to dodge whole issue with his classic line "you misunderstand/misrespresent"
Nessie wrote:
You again misunderstand. My posiiton is that messenger and message can be mixed and matched and it iscontext that is important. Then I gave you an examples (note the plural) of what I mean. One (note the singular) is where both package and messenger are just as important. But in other cases (note the plural) it can be different.
Nessie just ingore what he said, he see it, I quoted it, he ignores it and use his classic line again. Fact is that he said that "package" is more important and no matter how strong is the message inside, I proved it with his quotes.
Nessie wrote:Why did you chop the end of the quotes from the video?


I choped it because my refutation was aimed directly on your claim which I didn´t choped in quotation, I always chop what is not relevant to my response since I adressed only your first alleged evidence of antisemitism, don´t know where is problem to understand it. Nessie again ignore everything and I am really tired by his strategy to ignore everything what makes troubles to him.

Nessie wrote:Nothing in your quotes from Jewish organisation sor newspaper headlines refutes the claim war was forced on Hitler by Zionists, the Zionists agreed to the Final Solution, claims about Madagascar, wanting lots of war victims, Jews got more food than Germans and some Jews decided they did not want to be Jews anymore.

What the above shows is an example of revisionism then turning to anti-semitic etc language
Another lie from Nessie, my few examples of evidence clearly proved that man in the video didn´t invite his claim about forcing of war because of alleged "antisemitism or neonazism" , but he based it on evidence. As I see Nessie still don´t bother to find that rest of his alleged evidence is false too as I recommened to him to do further research.
Nessie wrote:Making anti-semitic comments, having a banner with an anti-semitic slogan and doing Hitler salutes, yes anti semitic and if you cannot understand that there is no wonder you are unable to understand much of what I have posted here.
Nessie blame me for not understanding, he just don´t realize that he is the one who don´t understand.
Nessie wrote:Again, you misunderstand, this was about my definition of revisionism and denial, not a definition of the Holocaust.


But I would like to see your definition of holocaust since is important to see how wrong you are, please Nessie, tell me your definition of holocaust, no dodging.

Nessie wrote:You have linked yourself to the answers you have given about whether you are a denier or a revisionist. That is how I arrived at my conclusion.


Maybe Nessie could write it in way that can allow to understand to what he is writing. He labeled me denier, so how did he arrived to his conclusion to label me with this word?

Nessie wrote:I go by the simple dictionary defintion of "an·ti-Sem·ite (nt-smt, nt-)n. One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews."

Very interesting, but as proved by your own source, wikipedia, there are plenty of semitic group of peoples, see again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So how is possible, that anti-semitism means "hostility toward against Jews"? Where is the rest of semitic peoples dear Nessie? If I hate all groups of peoples in wikipedia article above, I am not anti-semitic, but If I am hostile against Jews, I am anti-semite? Explain it to me since you are using this term very often to label peoples as I see.

The dictionary definition of anti-semitism is clear. It is about Jews. If you are hostile about Jews as you put it, you are being anti-semitic.


Is clear why Nessie don´t want to answer my simple points.

Nessie wrote:Since Zionism is intrinsically linked to Judaism and Jews, I would say that someone against zionists in that they discriminate, hate or are prejudiced then they are anti-semitic.

So you would say that these peoples are another bunch of anti-semites?
http://www.google.cz/search?tbm=isch&hl ... 34l3.4l7l0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Correct me If I am wrong, but those peoples are Jews, or they are camouflaged neo-nazis from KKK pictorial evidence which you have provided to me?

Israel is a democracy with many different groups, indeed there are many different Jewish groups and some are Zionist and others are not. They often fight amongst each other and do not agree amongst themselves. If two Jews exchange abuse or fight, are they both being anti-semitic? I say no they are not. Anti-semitism is about those who are not Jewish hating, discriminating against or being prejudiced against Jews, Zionism, Israel even.
Summary, according to Nessie´s logic and his sources:

When Jews are against zionists or zionisms or Jews, they are not anti-semites.
When non-Jews are against zionists or zionism or Jews, they are anti-semites.
When non-Jews are against other semitic peoples of non-Jewish origin, they are not anti-semites.


Got it?
Nessie wrote:I don't have an explanation for wikipedia's definition. Ask them if you really want to know. I chose the word based on the dictionary definition of Gentile - A person who is not Jewish.
Nessie is this time honest enough to say that he is not able to explain this nonsense. But he has no problem to insist on his absurd claims anyway.
Nessie wrote:BTW, you have missed post #48. I have been answering your questions for sometime now and putting up with the usual accusations of lying and dodging without resourting to your level of rudeness. So please answer my questions now.
Your answer were proved to be false. My accusations are based on evidence which I quoted here, you simply don´t like it, no wonder. Nessie is speaking about my rudeness which is not here, he is not ble to quote even one example, but i am able to quote lot of examples of his rudeness when he labeled peoples anti semites, neo nazis, or nuts, very polite behavior.

Is Nessie to able to quote example of my rudeness?

Sorry, i was lost in this mess, here are your answers on this:
Nessie wrote:Bob
1 - are you anti-semitic in that you do not like and you mistrust Jews?

2 - are you pro-Nazi in that you believe their National Socialism and Arian views are correct and the world would be better for the Nazis to have won WWII?

3 - are you a Hitler apologist in that you think he is misunderstood, he did not want to casue a war and that he would have made a great European leader?
1 - I never claimed that i don´t like Jews or that I mistrust Jews, strawman.

2 - I never expressed such a postiion, another strawman..

3 - Same as above.

Really don´t know what Nessie is trying with these false accusations, but i thank him for another group of evidence of his rudeness.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:23 pm

You originally asked me to back up my claim that "here it falls apart for me is when they come out with anti-semitism, pro-Nazi, Hitler apologist rubbish and when they start to deny there was a Holocaust at all." (Post #26). So I did, the quotes from the video that still refuse to comment upon, but are clearly anti-semitic etc.

I then added the picture to show how I treat revisionsim and deniers as being different. The picture is clearly anti-semitic etc. I am completely lost at what it is I am supposed to be dodging by posting evidence of my claims.

When you say "package is more important", more important than what? I have clearly said that depending on context the message can be the most important or the messanger can be the most important or a mix of the two. ALL can be the most important. I am lost what I have supposedly ignored?

Regarding the chopping of the quote, your response makes no sense. Please try again at explaining what you mean.

Regarding the rest of the quote, what is said in the video is anti-semitic etc. Your alleged refutation is wrong,

What is about the image and its anti-semitic etc context am I wrong about?

Definition of Holocaust -

hol·o·caust (hl-kôst, hl-)
n.
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
2.
a. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: "Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe" (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b. A massive slaughter: "an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust" (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.

Regarding you being a denier see post #47

You make the point that Semitic includes others who are not Jews. But anti-semitic has come to mean hostility etc towards Jews, as show with the dictionary link. That is what I am referring to.

Your summation "When Jews are against zionists or zionisms or Jews, they are not anti-semites.
When non-Jews are against zionists or zionism or Jews, they are anti-semites.
When non-Jews are against other semitic peoples of non-Jewish origin, they are not anti-semites."

is correct, that is what I mean. Google dictionary defintions yourself to see that as well.

About anti-gentile, I also offered other alternatives. If you are unhappy about that term, pick another you prefer and I will go with it as well. So long we both understand it means Jewish hatred, bigotry etc of others such as whites.

Er rudeness, you accused me of lying and dodging in the last post and many others beside. :?

Thankyou for your answers

"1 - I never claimed that i don´t like Jews or that I mistrust Jews, strawman.

2 - I never expressed such a postiion, another strawman..

3 - Same as above.

Really don´t know what Nessie is trying with these false accusations, but i thank him for another group of evidence of his rudeness."

Please note no strawmen as I was asking questions about your position, I was not misrepresenting your position. It is not a strawman to ask questions starting "are you" as can answer either yes or no or somewhere inbetween. So no rudeness either. So again please answer the questions

1 - are you anti-semitic in that you do not like and you mistrust Jews?

2 - are you pro-Nazi in that you believe their National Socialism and Arian views are correct and the world would be better for the Nazis to have won WWII?

3 - are you a Hitler apologist in that you think he is misunderstood, he did not want to casue a war and that he would have made a great European leader?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:49 pm

Really don´t know why you did not adress my points and started new post.
Nessie wrote:You originally asked me to back up my claim that "here it falls apart for me is when they come out with anti-semitism, pro-Nazi, Hitler apologist rubbish and when they start to deny there was a Holocaust at all." (Post #26). So I did, the quotes from the video that still refuse to comment upon, but are clearly anti-semitic etc.
But i proved, that just first of your quote is wrong, is not anti semitic or neo-nazi, but based on evidence and not on antisemitism. Where is your evidence that they based the first quote about "forcing war on Hitler" on some antisemitism or neonazism? You did not present any, but i presented evidence which prove you wrong.
Nessie wrote:I then added the picture to show how I treat revisionsim and deniers as being different. The picture is clearly anti-semitic etc. I am completely lost at what it is I am supposed to be dodging by posting evidence of my claims.
Nessie wrote:What is about the image and its anti-semitic etc context am I wrong about?
I wanted example of revisionists in my requested quoted above in my previous comment, but you provided my with picture of KKK with signs, so where are the revisionists? You dodged it with saying, that you provided me picture of deniers, but did I ask for picture of alleged deniers? No.

Aside this, how do you know that the KKK men are antisemitic, How do you know that these peoples didn´t based their signs on evidence? Did you ask them? Did you saw their evidence to judge if they really show these signs because of hate for Jewish religion or nationality?
Nessie wrote:When you say "package is more important", more important than what? I have clearly said that depending on context the message can be the most important or the messanger can be the most important or a mix of the two. ALL can be the most important. I am lost what I have supposedly ignored?
Show me when is messenger more important than message, show me when is message more important than messenger, and show me example of mixing of the two. I provide you with exmaple to ilustrate your claims, feel free to use it or you can use own examples.

Somebody claim these following points:

1)Earth is not flat, but spherical.
2)1+1=2
3)Americans interned Japanese in concentration camps during WW2.
4)Soviet Jew/s were responsible for holodomor in Ukraine resulting in millions of victims in 1932-33.
5)Holocaust during WW2 did not happen.


In which case is message important than messenger and messenger more important than message?

I already expressed, that for me, the message is always the most important and I don´t care if messenger is revisionist, homeless, Jew or some Nessie, I care only about message.
Now I want to see your explanation how you judge when is important message, and when is important messenger as you claim.
Nessie wrote:Regarding the chopping of the quote, your response makes no sense. Please try again at explaining what you mean.
My response does make sense, I responded only to part of your comment, which hadn´t been cut out, that is why I removed the rest of your comment from quotation. Don´t know what is your problem.
Nessie wrote:Regarding the rest of the quote, what is said in the video is anti-semitic etc. Your alleged refutation is wrong,
My refutation is not alleged, I clearly refuted your claim that the man is anti semitic or neo nazi when he said "war was forced on him (Hitler)", I clearly refuted this alleged antisemitic quote here, and proved that this man based what he has said on evidence and not on antisemitism.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You ignore it, really dishonest. I also suggested to you to do further research to find that you are wrong in other alleged anisemitic quotes, you ignore it too.
Nessie wrote:Definition of Holocaust -

hol·o·caust (hl-kôst, hl-)
n.
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
2.
a. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: "Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe" (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b. A massive slaughter: "an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust" (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.
Good, here is one of the main revisionist point which contradict "your" definition

No Nazi plan for genocide Jews or the others ever existed.

http://www.vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html#5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you can see, holocaust revisionists clearly deny your definition of holocaust and holocaust itself, so according to you, they are all deniers and not revisionists. So again, where is difference between deniers and revisionists to back up your claim?

At this time, you only proved that you don´t even know what revisionists aka deniers (the peoples which you obnoxiously attack) actually says, you just blame someone and you even don´t know what is the message, another proof that you really don´t care about message. In the case that you would know what revisionists says, you would never claimed that holocaust deniers and revisionists are different peoples.
Nessie wrote:Regarding you being a denier see post #47
Post 47
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271624" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These responses in post 47 are revisionist points, see them here
http://www.vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html#5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So how is possible that I am denier and not revisionist? Nessie is quite confused and lost in his claims, or he was maybe cheated by other flawed user "OutofBreath". Nessie again confirmed that he really don´t know what revisionist really says and what is their message, he cares only about messenger and package.
Nessie wrote:You make the point that Semitic includes others who are not Jews. But anti-semitic has come to mean hostility etc towards Jews, as show with the dictionary link. That is what I am referring to.
I proved that antisemitism is clearly false term which is used only in connection with Jews to label their oponnents in negative way, but not used in connection with other semitic peoples, which prove that term "antisemitism" is quite false and had nothing to do with hate because of race/nationality or religion, in such a cases of hate because of race/nationality or religion this term definition should have to include all semitic peoples and not only Jews. Feel free to prove that my conslusion is false.
Nessie wrote:Your summation "When Jews are against zionists or zionisms or Jews, they are not anti-semites.
When non-Jews are against zionists or zionism or Jews, they are anti-semites.
When non-Jews are against other semitic peoples of non-Jewish origin, they are not anti-semites."

is correct, that is what I mean. Google dictionary defintions yourself to see that as well.
Great, hope you see how absurd this whole issue is, and that i am correct.
Nessie wrote:About anti-gentile, I also offered other alternatives. If you are unhappy about that term, pick another you prefer and I will go with it as well. So long we both understand it means Jewish hatred, bigotry etc of others such as whites.
I don´t care about this term, I care about your explanation, why Jewish antigentilism is defined as caused by gentiles themselves, but antisemitism is not defined as caused by Jews themselves. You already said that you are not able to explain this nonsense, right?
Nessie wrote:Er rudeness, you accused me of lying and dodging in the last post and many others beside. :?
You consider as rudeness when I accused you of rude and dishonest behavior and presented you with evidence which prove it? Interesting. I consider as rudness lying and dodging itself and not the fact that someone exposed them.

One can only wonder how would you call your accusation of Germans from genocide without single piece of evidence.
Nessie wrote:Please note no strawmen as I was asking questions about your position, I was not misrepresenting your position. It is not a strawman to ask questions starting "are you" as can answer either yes or no or somewhere inbetween. So no rudeness either. So again please answer the questions

1 - are you anti-semitic in that you do not like and you mistrust Jews?

2 - are you pro-Nazi in that you believe their National Socialism and Arian views are correct and the world would be better for the Nazis to have won WWII?

3 - are you a Hitler apologist in that you think he is misunderstood, he did not want to casue a war and that he would have made a great European leader?
1 - I never claimed that I do not like Jews or that I mistrust them.

2 - I never claimed that I believe in NS or Aryan views or in better world under Nazi rule.

3 - Same as above.

How can I answer this when I never claimed these points? Ask someone who claimed this, not me, this really looks like strawman to make an impression that I claimed this in the past, really dishonest.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23987
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:41 am

The problem with neo-nasties is they spend so much time denying it. That does make sense. Pedophiles do the same thing, for the same reason.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by David » Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:44 am

Gawdzilla wrote:The problem with neo-nasties is they spend so much time denying it. That does make sense. Pedophiles do the same thing, for the same reason.
You missed my question to you.
Is it too hard for you to grasp the concept that some of the Story is true,
some has been exaggerated, and some has been made up?

Which of the following stories really happened?
1. Racist laws
2. Deportation of civilians
3. Detention of "Enemy Aliens."
4. Human Soap Factories.
5. Steam Chambers of Death.
6. 1,400,000 dead at Majdanek.
7. 4,000,000 dead at Auschwitz.
8. A written "Hitler Order."
In fact, every modern historian is "revisionist" to a large degree.


As to us Revisionists being "Nazis." Some are, lots are not.
I tend to ignore a person's race, sex, or politics if they have good
evidence.

I am a Revisionist because I am pretty sure that large parts of the
official story are wrong. I don't like the ugly tales of human soap factories
and baby bonfires. I am happy that they are not true.
And I wonder why people are so determined to Believe the sick weird crap.
Reality was bad enough.

I also do not like being fed bullsh*t, particularly by the government.
Why don't you read what Revisionists say? From Bradley Smith's site-

Revisionists have found that the first casualty of war is Truth. We have found that much of the history we are taught today about WWII was originally influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited the real tragedies of real people for propaganda purposes serving the State. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays.
The point here is not to justify past crimes on the part of anyone, but to understand that special interests, including the State, manipulate the historical record to further their own interests. The manipulation of historical icons has gotten us into very deep trouble. George Bush's campaign against the "Axis of Evil" is only one recent example. "

Smith's analysis is pretty libertarian, skeptical, and accurate. I think that
you are wrong saying he is a "Nazi."

[/quote]

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:41 am

Bob, you have become so twisted with your supposed proofs, the KKK may not be anti-semitic, your version of what anti-semitism means, the difference between denier and revisionist that for me it has become a joke and you are in a world of your own.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:52 am

David wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:The problem with neo-nasties is they spend so much time denying it. That does make sense. Pedophiles do the same thing, for the same reason.
You missed my question to you.
Is it too hard for you to grasp the concept that some of the Story is true,
some has been exaggerated, and some has been made up?

Which of the following stories really happened?
1. Racist laws
2. Deportation of civilians
3. Detention of "Enemy Aliens."
4. Human Soap Factories.
5. Steam Chambers of Death.
6. 1,400,000 dead at Majdanek.
7. 4,000,000 dead at Auschwitz.
8. A written "Hitler Order."
In fact, every modern historian is "revisionist" to a large degree.



As to us Revisionists being "Nazis." Some are, lots are not.
I tend to ignore a person's race, sex, or politics if they have good
evidence.

I am a Revisionist because I am pretty sure that large parts of the
official story are wrong. I don't like the ugly tales of human soap factories
and baby bonfires. I am happy that they are not true.
And I wonder why people are so determined to Believe the sick weird crap.
Reality was bad enough.

I also do not like being fed bullsh*t, particularly by the government.
Why don't you read what Revisionists say? From Bradley Smith's site-

Revisionists have found that the first casualty of war is Truth. We have found that much of the history we are taught today about WWII was originally influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited the real tragedies of real people for propaganda purposes serving the State. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays.
The point here is not to justify past crimes on the part of anyone, but to understand that special interests, including the State, manipulate the historical record to further their own interests. The manipulation of historical icons has gotten us into very deep trouble. George Bush's campaign against the "Axis of Evil" is only one recent example. "

Smith's analysis is pretty libertarian, skeptical, and accurate. I think that
you are wrong saying he is a "Nazi."

Yes, I agree and I now believe some of the Holocaust stories are not correct anymore. As for your questions 1-3 are correct and 4- 8 are not


I agree about the truth, we will disagree about what is true and what is not (such as the thread about the British role in India during WWII).

I do not know enough about Bradley Smith to say if he is a Nazi sympathiser or not, but I would say from what I have read so far he is not and it it is wrong to say revisionsim = nazi sympathiser, anti-semitic etc. But the problem is the public perception is that revisionism = nazi sympathiser etc and examples such as the You Tube video and the KKK picture (that Bob has been trying to claim is not nazi sympathetic or anti-semitic) very much come over as being nazi sympathetic, anti-semitic etc and to deny that is wrong
.

[/quote]
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:40 am

Nessie wrote:Bob, you have become so twisted with your supposed proofs, the KKK may not be anti-semitic, your version of what anti-semitism means, the difference between denier and revisionist that for me it has become a joke and you are in a world of your own.
Nessie is demolished in my latest comment, so he decided not to adress points which proved him wrong and again speaks about some twisting. Very honest.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:55 am

Nessie wrote:...and the KKK picture (that Bob has been trying to claim is not nazi sympathetic or anti-semitic) very much come over as being nazi sympathetic, anti-semitic etc and to deny that is wrong[/color].
Nessie don t tell truth again, what Bob actually said about this picture?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... t_hoax.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...how do you know that the KKK men are antisemitic, How do you know that these peoples didn´t based their signs on evidence? Did you ask them? Did you saw their evidence to judge if they really show these signs because of hate for Jewish religion or nationality?"

So Nessie lied again and he totally invented what I have allegedly said, I never claimed or tried to claim opinion that these men are not antisemitic or nazi sympatizers, I never expressed my opinion about these men and if they are or aren´t antisemites or neonazis, all what I said can be seen above and I only wanted to see how Nessie arrived to his interesting conclusion about the picture, but Nessie dodged whole comment, no wonder. I suspect Nessie from being pathological liar since this went too far, this is really too much. He will accuse me of bad behavior again I guess, because I dared to expose his another lie.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23987
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:46 am

Bob, I didn't miss your question, I ignored it.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:58 am

Gawdzilla wrote:Bob, I didn't miss your question, I ignored it.
Gawdzilla is a bit confused, the post which he adressed is from David
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271695" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ups...

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23987
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:04 pm

Bob wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:Bob, I didn't miss your question, I ignored it.
Gawdzilla is a bit confused, the post which he adressed is from David
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271695" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ups...
Bob doesn't think I was addressing him.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:27 pm

Gawdzilla has problem to admit his little slip.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23987
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:37 pm

Bob wrote:Gawdzilla has problem to admit his little slip.
You said above that I had ignored your question. I responded to that. Try having someone read the posts to you if you don't have the skills.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:25 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:...and the KKK picture (that Bob has been trying to claim is not nazi sympathetic or anti-semitic) very much come over as being nazi sympathetic, anti-semitic etc and to deny that is wrong[/color].
Nessie don t tell truth again, what Bob actually said about this picture?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... t_hoax.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...how do you know that the KKK men are antisemitic, How do you know that these peoples didn´t based their signs on evidence? Did you ask them? Did you saw their evidence to judge if they really show these signs because of hate for Jewish religion or nationality?"

So Nessie lied again and he totally invented what I have allegedly said, I never claimed or tried to claim opinion that these men are not antisemitic or nazi sympatizers, I never expressed my opinion about these men and if they are or aren´t antisemites or neonazis, all what I said can be seen above and I only wanted to see how Nessie arrived to his interesting conclusion about the picture, but Nessie dodged whole comment, no wonder. I suspect Nessie from being pathological liar since this went too far, this is really too much. He will accuse me of bad behavior again I guess, because I dared to expose his another lie.
A group of men, some of whom are dressed as KKK members, which is an anti-semitic movement, some of whom are doing Nazi salutes, a pro Nazi act and some of whom are carrying placards with the likes of the Holocaust is a hoax, which says they are Holocaust deniers. Even if it is evidence based, they are still Holocaust deniers. According to you Bob, they may not be as somehow I don't necessarily know that they are anti-semitic, pro Nazi Holocaust deniers, which makes their actions, dress and placards very odd indeed. I disagree and say their dress, actions and banners say otherwise and they are as they present themselves.

We have a disagreement Bob, yet according to you I am a pathalogical lair about what the men in the image are like. Disagreeing with you, with evidence to back up my reasons, does not make me a liar. It means we only disagree about the evidence.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:14 pm

Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:...and the KKK picture (that Bob has been trying to claim is not nazi sympathetic or anti-semitic) very much come over as being nazi sympathetic, anti-semitic etc and to deny that is wrong[/color].
Nessie don t tell truth again, what Bob actually said about this picture?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... t_hoax.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...how do you know that the KKK men are antisemitic, How do you know that these peoples didn´t based their signs on evidence? Did you ask them? Did you saw their evidence to judge if they really show these signs because of hate for Jewish religion or nationality?"

So Nessie lied again and he totally invented what I have allegedly said, I never claimed or tried to claim opinion that these men are not antisemitic or nazi sympatizers, I never expressed my opinion about these men and if they are or aren´t antisemites or neonazis, all what I said can be seen above and I only wanted to see how Nessie arrived to his interesting conclusion about the picture, but Nessie dodged whole comment, no wonder. I suspect Nessie from being pathological liar since this went too far, this is really too much. He will accuse me of bad behavior again I guess, because I dared to expose his another lie.
A group of men, some of whom are dressed as KKK members, which is an anti-semitic movement, some of whom are doing Nazi salutes, a pro Nazi act and some of whom are carrying placards with the likes of the Holocaust is a hoax, which says they are Holocaust deniers. Even if it is evidence based, they are still Holocaust deniers. According to you Bob, they may not be as somehow I don't necessarily know that they are anti-semitic, pro Nazi Holocaust deniers, which makes their actions, dress and placards very odd indeed. I disagree and say their dress, actions and banners say otherwise and they are as they present themselves.
Another proof that Nessie don´t care about message or evidence, according to him they are KKK, they are dressed in KKK uniform, they use Nazi salute so according to him, he even don´t know what are these men, but according to Nessie, no need to care about evidence for what they have on the signs, because of reasons mentioned above.

Nessie again indicated that I expressed some opinions about them, but as usual, this is not true, I only asked Nessie how he arrived to his conclusion, I don´t care about men on the photo, I care about Nessie´s logic and arguments.

Nessie also ignore that term "anti-semitic" has been proved here to be false and itself discrimating to other semitic peoples, beause only Jews are included in definition of antisemitism according to Nessies´s source. He label other peoples with term which is itself discriminating. Very interesting hypocrisy
Nessie wrote:We have a disagreement Bob, yet according to you I am a pathalogical lair about what the men in the image are like. Disagreeing with you, with evidence to back up my reasons, does not make me a liar. It means we only disagree about the evidence.
This have nothing to do with disagreement, you clearly said: and the KKK picture (that Bob has been trying to claim is not nazi sympathetic or anti-semitic), but I never claimed this nor I tried it, you simply lied, ther is no such a quote or sentence from me, you completely invented it. Do you finally understand that you really lied about what i have said about the men on the picture?

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by David » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:34 pm

Nessie wrote:Yes, I agree and I now believe some of the Holocaust stories are not correct anymore. As for your questions 1-3 are correct and 4- 8 are not

I agree with you and All scholars do too. Which means that
all scholars are now revisionists to a degree.
But what is unaddressed is the dishonesty of our own government.





I agree about the truth, we will disagree about what is true and what is not (such as the thread about the British role in India during WWII).

I do not know enough about Bradley Smith to say if he is a Nazi sympathiser or not, but I would say from what I have read so far he is not and it it is wrong to say revisionsim = nazi sympathiser, anti-semitic etc. But the problem is the public perception is that revisionism = nazi sympathiser etc and examples such as the You Tube video and the KKK picture (that Bob has been trying to claim is not nazi sympathetic or anti-semitic) very much come over as being nazi sympathetic, anti-semitic etc and to deny that is wrong
.
[/quote]

There are several reasons why Revisionists are painted as
"Neo-Nazi. skinheads" some valid and some simple smears.

Believers don't want to talk about the evidence and particularly
are reluctant to do reseach which "lessens to horror."
So, they often resort to ad hominem attacks to avoid honest discussion.

And, the small handful of National Socialists recognize that Revisionism
is right so they do try and use it.

And Revisionists end up getting pissed off that people don't accept what they see as
obvious. An example is Fritz Berg, the Revisionist engineer who realized
and proved that it is impossible to kill anyone with exhaust from an unloaded
diesel engine. For a scientific mind, he saw, the tales of "diesel death"
as impossible.

Yet many Believers continued to support the "diesel death" tales.
Other Believers just "modified" the testimony and claimed that references to
diesel engines "really" meant gasoline engines.
Mr. Berg simply saw all this as dishonesty. He has ended up as in your face
strident.
I know Mr. Berg. He is actually a nice, reasonable guy with lots of
friends of various kinds. His website is http://nazigassings.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by David » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:44 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:
Bob wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:Bob, I didn't miss your question, I ignored it.
Gawdzilla is a bit confused, the post which he adressed is from David
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271695" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ups...
Bob doesn't think I was addressing him.
Could you just address my question, please, Gawdzilla?

My point is that EVERYONE educated is a revisionist today to some degree when
the "official" findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal are used as the baseline
.

So, anyone smart is a revisionist.
It is just the reverse of your ad hominem attacks.




User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:46 pm

You said

"Another proof that Nessie don´t care about message or evidence, according to him they are KKK, they are dressed in KKK uniform, they use Nazi salute so according to him, he even don´t know what are these men, but according to Nessie, no need to care about evidence for what they have on the signs, because of reasons mentioned above."

Not true. There is significant evidence they are as I claim. For you to try and cast doubt on that means I serious doubt your credibility and ability to understand what is acceptable as evidence and what is not.

"Nessie again indicated that I expressed some opinions about them, but as usual, this is not true, I only asked Nessie how he arrived to his conclusion, I don´t care about men on the photo, I care about Nessie´s logic and arguments."

OK, so a little twist and this is somehow a test of my logic and arguments. You have clearly suggested they are not as they present themselves by asking me how I reached a certain conclusion. So even though they wear KKK uniforms, are doing Nazi salutes and have Holocaust Hoax banners, according to you I may be faulty thinking they may not be anti-semitic, pro-Nazi Holocaust deniers. Again that casts serious credibility on your ability to understand what counts as evidence.

"Nessie also ignore that term "anti-semitic" has been proved here to be false and itself discrimating to other semitic peoples, beause only Jews are included in definition of antisemitism according to Nessies´s source. He label other peoples with term which is itself discriminating. Very interesting hypocrisy. "

OK, so you claim anti-semitic as a term is false and discriminating. Please then take action to have its defintion changed in every dictionary I have read. I am going to go by the dictionary definitions, not yours.

"This have nothing to do with disagreement, you clearly said: and the KKK picture (that Bob has been trying to claim is not nazi sympathetic or anti-semitic), but I never claimed this nor I tried it, you simply lied, ther is no such a quote or sentence from me, you completely invented it. Do you finally understand that you really lied about what i have said about the men on the picture?"

With all of your twisting it is rarely clear what you mean. You have cast doubt on my interpretation of the picture and asked me to justify it. Since I originally posted it to show you evidence that Holocaust denial can also be anti-semitic and you very much appeared to doubt that I will now ask for simple clarification

Do you think the men in the photo are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, Holocaust deniers? Yes, no or not sure?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:25 pm

David wrote:
Nessie wrote:Yes, I agree and I now believe some of the Holocaust stories are not correct anymore. As for your questions 1-3 are correct and 4- 8 are not

I agree with you and All scholars do too. Which means that
all scholars are now revisionists to a degree.
But what is unaddressed is the dishonesty of our own government.





I agree about the truth, we will disagree about what is true and what is not (such as the thread about the British role in India during WWII).

I do not know enough about Bradley Smith to say if he is a Nazi sympathiser or not, but I would say from what I have read so far he is not and it it is wrong to say revisionsim = nazi sympathiser, anti-semitic etc. But the problem is the public perception is that revisionism = nazi sympathiser etc and examples such as the You Tube video and the KKK picture (that Bob has been trying to claim is not nazi sympathetic or anti-semitic) very much come over as being nazi sympathetic, anti-semitic etc and to deny that is wrong
.
There are several reasons why Revisionists are painted as
"Neo-Nazi. skinheads" some valid and some simple smears.

Believers don't want to talk about the evidence and particularly
are reluctant to do reseach which "lessens to horror."
So, they often resort to ad hominem attacks to avoid honest discussion.

And, the small handful of National Socialists recognize that Revisionism
is right so they do try and use it.

And Revisionists end up getting pissed off that people don't accept what they see as
obvious. An example is Fritz Berg, the Revisionist engineer who realized
and proved that it is impossible to kill anyone with exhaust from an unloaded
diesel engine. For a scientific mind, he saw, the tales of "diesel death"
as impossible.

Yet many Believers continued to support the "diesel death" tales.
Other Believers just "modified" the testimony and claimed that references to
diesel engines "really" meant gasoline engines.
Mr. Berg simply saw all this as dishonesty. He has ended up as in your face
strident.
I know Mr. Berg. He is actually a nice, reasonable guy with lots of
friends of various kinds. His website is http://nazigassings.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[/quote]

Any revisionist to get their point over has to have very strong academic credentials, have no history whatsoever of anything that can be remotely seen to be anti-semitic, pro Nazi or Hitler apologist and would need to chose their words very carefully.

Regarding Berg, assuming he has proved an unloaded diesel engine cannot gas people, it is then reasonable to say those who orignally said it was a diesel engine were mistaken. But those people still provide evidence an engine was used to gas people to death. Likewise, if witnesses see a car deliberately driven at and killing someone, but they disagree what make of car it is, that does not mean they cannot corroborate the actions of the driver anymore. Arguing that it does mean they cannot corroborate each other is the tactic of a lawyer fishing to try and discredit witnesses.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:32 pm

Nessie wrote:Not true. There is significant evidence they are as I claim. For you to try and cast doubt on that means I serious doubt your credibility and ability to understand what is acceptable as evidence and what is not.
Not true? Let see - What this evidence of what they allegedy are has to do with their message which they expressed on their signs? They are KKK or anti smeites or neonazis, whatever according to you, but what this has to do with their message on the signs? Their mesage is false, true, or you can dismiss it or what?
Nessie wrote:OK, so a little twist and this is somehow a test of my logic and arguments. You have clearly suggested they are not as they present themselves by asking me how I reached a certain conclusion. So even though they wear KKK uniforms, are doing Nazi salutes and have Holocaust Hoax banners, according to you I may be faulty thinking they may not be anti-semitic, pro-Nazi Holocaust deniers. Again that casts serious credibility on your ability to understand what counts as evidence.
So only little twist, he he, nicely said. This is no test. You have similar problem as Mr. Muehlenkamp, please, tak into consideration what i am writing and not what i am not writing. I have nothing against assumptions, but they must be based.

Regarding the emphasied quote, Nessie just comitted another strawman and actually stopped counting his strawmans. I must repeat, I never expressed any opinion about these men.
Nessie wrote:OK, so you claim anti-semitic as a term is false and discriminating. Please then take action to have its defintion changed in every dictionary I have read. I am going to go by the dictionary definitions, not yours.
I don´t care about correct definition of term which you and your companions uses as label to figuratively speaking "sort bad and good peoples" in this world, I only enjoy your faulty logic and that you even don´t know, that term which you use so often is itself discriminating and false. This only prove true "value" of peoples which use this term to label the others.

Regarding your first words, I only claim or am I correct/wrong about this term?
Nessie wrote:With all of your twisting it is rarely clear what you mean. You have cast doubt on my interpretation of the picture and asked me to justify it. Since I originally posted it to show you evidence that Holocaust denial can also be anti-semitic and you very much appeared to doubt that I will now ask for simple clarification
Is clear that Nessie don´t admit his dishonest practice to invent opponents´s quotes, on the other side, he even blame me for some twisting and speak again about things which did not happen from my side.
Nessie wrote:Do you think the men in the photo are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, Holocaust deniers? Yes, no or not sure?
I actually need more than one photo to judge peoples Nessie.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by David » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:55 am

Nessie wrote: Any revisionist to get their point over has to have very strong academic credentials, have no history whatsoever of anything that can be remotely seen to be anti-semitic, pro Nazi or Hitler apologist and would need to chose their words very carefully.

That is a correct analysis. There is also a significant tendency
among the Believers to ignore inconvenient facts or take even the smallest
jump in logic...if the jump is in the direction of lessening the Ugly Myth.

Take the 6 gas chambers of Majdanek as an example. 6 gas chambers and
a few huge shooting pits made sense if you were going to claim that
1.6 million people were killed there. But it seems "overkill" and illogical
now that the death toll has dropped to 78,000.
Yet no Believer publicly questions the Soviet produced evidence.






Regarding Berg, assuming he has proved an unloaded diesel engine cannot gas people, it is then reasonable to say those who orignally said it was a diesel engine were mistaken. But those people still provide evidence an engine was used to gas people to death. Likewise, if witnesses see a car deliberately driven at and killing someone, but they disagree what make of car it is, that does not mean they cannot corroborate the actions of the driver anymore. Arguing that it does mean they cannot corroborate each other is the tactic of a lawyer fishing to try and discredit witnesses.
I agree with you. Humans are weak vessels for carrying the
Truth. I tend to look for the most significant thing someone says, not
the stupidest.

My point was not to comment on "eye witness" testimony but to mention the
frustration that those educated and scientifically minded Revisionists who hold by the dictum Falsus In Uno, Falso In Omnibus feel.

As I said, I agree with you. The human mind is far too complex to be defined by
aphorisms.



User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23987
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:39 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:45 pm

Nessie wrote:Regarding Berg, assuming he has proved an unloaded diesel engine cannot gas people, it is then reasonable to say those who orignally said it was a diesel engine were mistaken. But those people still provide evidence an engine was used to gas people to death. Likewise, if witnesses see a car deliberately driven at and killing someone, but they disagree what make of car it is, that does not mean they cannot corroborate the actions of the driver anymore. Arguing that it does mean they cannot corroborate each other is the tactic of a lawyer fishing to try and discredit witnesses.
Engine? Why Nessie ignore witneses speaking about chlorine, Zyklon B, "black substance", quicklime, electricity, mobile gas chambers, gas with delayed effect, steam, vacuum, according to Nessie, all these witneses were mistaken? This is like to mistake elephant for cat, correct?

Here are points which still wait for Nessie to explain me how these magical gas chambers in Treblinka worked, because he believe in them and consider them as proved, he still ignore that what he showed to me can´t be used as homicidal gas chambers, so no chambers, correct?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p270370" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

David - there were allegedly 7 gas chambers in Majdanek according to Polish-Soviet report, at present time, only two alleged chambers remianed, but at least to my knowledge, they don´t bother to inform tourists about these little changes, so lot of Israelis every year gape to chamber which even according to museum athorities wasn´t used, I find it really embarrassing:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

---------------------------------
I recommend to watch whole movie Defamation, to see how they create imaginary antisemitism which don´t exist, they simply lie them and this is the result, watch it at least to 6:30:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a bunch of antisemites. All what you need to be antisemite is to ask some Jew "Where are you from, Israel?"

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"There are Neo-Nazis in hostile Poland which could knock the door of their rooms and which stay below window ready to throw stones, and that there are demonstrations against Jews, and even drunk NeoNazis came and knocked on door looking for Jews and that is the reasons why they must be protected by agent and why they can´t leave rooms." And how do they know it? Because their honest Mossad agent told them, This is how the non-existing antisemitism is easily created to make Jews believe that are hated.

This movie is from Jewish director, so no worries, according to Nessie´s logic, this movie is not anti-semitic.

Defamation 2009
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;!

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:47 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Not true. There is significant evidence they are as I claim. For you to try and cast doubt on that means I serious doubt your credibility and ability to understand what is acceptable as evidence and what is not.
Not true? Let see - What this evidence of what they allegedy are has to do with their message which they expressed on their signs? They are KKK or anti smeites or neonazis, whatever according to you, but what this has to do with their message on the signs? Their mesage is false, true, or you can dismiss it or what?


You asked for an example of holocaust deniers, which they are according to the messages on the placards who are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, which they are according to the dress and salutes. I have proved that at least some Holocaust deniers are are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi. You are just trying to defelct from that with your twisting comments
Nessie wrote:OK, so a little twist and this is somehow a test of my logic and arguments. You have clearly suggested they are not as they present themselves by asking me how I reached a certain conclusion. So even though they wear KKK uniforms, are doing Nazi salutes and have Holocaust Hoax banners, according to you I may be faulty thinking they may not be anti-semitic, pro-Nazi Holocaust deniers. Again that casts serious credibility on your ability to understand what counts as evidence.
So only little twist, he he, nicely said. This is no test. You have similar problem as Mr. Muehlenkamp, please, tak into consideration what i am writing and not what i am not writing. I have nothing against assumptions, but they must be based.

Your twists and deflections, one of which I have shown above about the image of the KKK, along with your poor grammar and style of writing make it very difficult to follow what pint you are trying to make.


Regarding the emphasied quote, Nessie just comitted another strawman and actually stopped counting his strawmans. I must repeat, I never expressed any opinion about these men.

You have cast doubt on my interpretation of the photo, which calls into question what your interpretation is and I am still trying to figure out what your point is about this matter.
Nessie wrote:OK, so you claim anti-semitic as a term is false and discriminating. Please then take action to have its defintion changed in every dictionary I have read. I am going to go by the dictionary definitions, not yours.
I don´t care about correct definition of term which you and your companions uses as label to figuratively speaking "sort bad and good peoples" in this world, I only enjoy your faulty logic and that you even don´t know, that term which you use so often is itself discriminating and false. This only prove true "value" of peoples which use this term to label the others.

Regarding your first words, I only claim or am I correct/wrong about this term?

A classic example of your twisting, deflection, poor grammar and inablity to make a point.

Nessie wrote:With all of your twisting it is rarely clear what you mean. You have cast doubt on my interpretation of the picture and asked me to justify it. Since I originally posted it to show you evidence that Holocaust denial can also be anti-semitic and you very much appeared to doubt that I will now ask for simple clarification
Is clear that Nessie don´t admit his dishonest practice to invent opponents´s quotes, on the other side, he even blame me for some twisting and speak again about things which did not happen from my side.

You were the one who invented a quote by me. See post 107 of the thread about Krema II at Birkenau. I have never made up a quote and attributed it to you.
Nessie wrote:Do you think the men in the photo are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, Holocaust deniers? Yes, no or not sure?
I actually need more than one photo to judge peoples Nessie.

Please answer the question about that image.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:03 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Regarding Berg, assuming he has proved an unloaded diesel engine cannot gas people, it is then reasonable to say those who orignally said it was a diesel engine were mistaken. But those people still provide evidence an engine was used to gas people to death. Likewise, if witnesses see a car deliberately driven at and killing someone, but they disagree what make of car it is, that does not mean they cannot corroborate the actions of the driver anymore. Arguing that it does mean they cannot corroborate each other is the tactic of a lawyer fishing to try and discredit witnesses.
Engine? Why Nessie ignore witneses speaking about chlorine, Zyklon B, "black substance", quicklime, electricity, mobile gas chambers, gas with delayed effect, steam, vacuum, according to Nessie, all these witneses were mistaken? This is like to mistake elephant for cat, correct?

Talking about engines is not ignoring other reports of how people were killed. I have answered the other issues before in the threads about cleaning clothes in gas chambers and Krema II at Birkenau.


Here are points which still wait for Nessie to explain me how these magical gas chambers in Treblinka worked, because he believe in them and consider them as proved, he still ignore that what he showed to me can´t be used as homicidal gas chambers, so no chambers, correct?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p270370" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe the ARC study which shows how the chambers worked, based on witness evidence.


......
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:28 pm

Nessie wrote:You asked for an example of holocaust deniers, which they are according to the messages on the placards who are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, which they are according to the dress and salutes. I have proved that at least some Holocaust deniers are are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi. You are just trying to defelct from that with your twisting comments
Nessie, why you lie so outrageously again? I wrote this:

"Nessie is able to show names of revisionists which are anti-semitic or neo-nazis and that this is the reason why they say what they say and show me some examples?"
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271510" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And because for you denier is not revisionist, I still wait for correct picture.

Nessie dodged rest of my points.
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:OK, so a little twist and this is somehow a test of my logic and arguments. You have clearly suggested they are not as they present themselves by asking me how I reached a certain conclusion. So even though they wear KKK uniforms, are doing Nazi salutes and have Holocaust Hoax banners, according to you I may be faulty thinking they may not be anti-semitic, pro-Nazi Holocaust deniers. Again that casts serious credibility on your ability to understand what counts as evidence.
Your twists and deflections, one of which I have shown above about the image of the KKK, along with your poor grammar and style of writing make it very difficult to follow what pint you are trying to make.
Only your twists are exposed here Nessie, if you don´t agree, feel free to quote just one twist from me.

Nessie started ad hominems, sorry Nessie, but english is not my mother tongue if you really think that my grammar is poor. Each of your next comment is lower and lower, this really show how desperate you are, you even started to blame me for you faults because of my "poor grammar."

Don´t worry Nessie, If I comit some fault in the future, I will not claim that your poor grammar or style is cause of my fault. How low must one fall to start with such a strategy, unbelieveable.
Nessie wrote:You have cast doubt on my interpretation of the photo, which calls into question what your interpretation is and I am still trying to figure out what your point is about this matter.
I don´t care about interpretation of the photo, I only enjoy your false logic and evidence which leads you to your conclusions.
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:I don´t care about correct definition of term which you and your companions uses as label to figuratively speaking "sort bad and good peoples" in this world, I only enjoy your faulty logic and that you even don´t know, that term which you use so often is itself discriminating and false. This only prove true "value" of peoples which use this term to label the others.

Regarding your first words, I only claim or am I correct/wrong about this term?
A classic example of your twisting, deflection, poor grammar and inablity to make a point.
This is Nessie´s response to point which prove how wrong he is, no owonder he dodged it.
Nessie wrote:You were the one who invented a quote by me. See post 107 of the thread about Krema II at Birkenau. I have never made up a quote and attributed it to you.
Why not to include that post to see that Nessie is wrong and he is lying again:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p270354" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nessie just don´t admit his dishonest strategy to freely invent claims of his opponent, nevermind, I proved it here http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271720" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, so no problem, that´s enough.
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Do you think the men in the photo are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, Holocaust deniers? Yes, no or not sure?
I actually need more than one photo to judge peoples Nessie.
Please answer the question about that image.
Nessie ignore my answer that I need more than one photo to judge peoples, he propably accuse me of dodging as I know him.

(edit - I corrected some grammar errors extra for Nessie)
Last edited by Bob on Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:49 pm

Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:Engine? Why Nessie ignore witneses speaking about chlorine, Zyklon B, "black substance", quicklime, electricity, mobile gas chambers, gas with delayed effect, steam, vacuum, according to Nessie, all these witneses were mistaken? This is like to mistake elephant for cat, correct?
Talking about engines is not ignoring other reports of how people were killed. I have answered the other issues before in the threads about cleaning clothes in gas chambers and Krema II at Birkenau.
Nessie did not answered these issues, so again, why Nessie ignore these methods of killing in alleged chambers, when these chambers were allgedly using fumes from gasoline engines accroding to Nessie who also ignore that his own source, deathcamps.org which he showed to me, speaks about diesels in his link about how the chambers looked like, here
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p270361" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/ ... ebcad.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So how is possible to mistake these methods when the alleged correct method are engines?
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:Here are points which still wait for Nessie to explain me how these magical gas chambers in Treblinka worked, because he believe in them and consider them as proved, he still ignore that what he showed to me can´t be used as homicidal gas chambers, so no chambers, correct?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p270370" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe the ARC study which shows how the chambers worked, based on witness evidence.
Pardon, what...you just believe? So you believe them and not your eyes or common sense or phsics, and etc., correct? So for you, this is matter of religion, correct?

Here are my points (again) which Nessie refused to adress, Nessie´s gas chambers in link below
http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/ ... ebcad.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

-his source speaks about diesel engines.

-chamber does not have anything like observation window in the roof as described by witness or report.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p270256" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-pipes with showers can be easily demolished by victims and exhaust pipes can be blocked so no gassing possible.

-chambers has no vent for removal of gas, so Nessie has problem with pressure in gas chamber.

-there were two engines and each for four chambers, Nessie is of course able to tell me how they achieved balanced distribution of fumes to all chambers.
(note - not four chambers but five of course, my mistake, but this is clearly my mistake and Nessie´s grammar or style is not responsible for my mistake)

-Nessie finally ignore that this "model" does not look like anything as described by witness(...)and not based on testimonies which I can read in Nessie´s source.

May I ask Nessie, why he admited that no gassing happened in Krema II and why he stopped believing it, but why didn´t he stop believing in gassing in these alleged gas chambers in Treblinka II?