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

Discussions
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 4:29 pm

Bob wrote:
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.

I can't give you names, but I did show you examples which you also asked for. I also gave an explanation of why people view denial and revisionist as in itself being anti-semitic. What have I dodged?
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 twist are exposed here Nessie, if you don´t agree, feel free to quote just one twist from me.

Nessie is started ad hominems, sorry Nessie, but english is not my mother tongue if you really thing 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.

I am very patient with you and try my best to follow what you say, but sometimes it is very difficult. I try to answer your questions and then you accuse me of not answering them as you claim that is not what you meant. So be prepared for lots of clarification questions from now on.
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.

Please give me an example of supposed false logic.
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.

If something does not make sense or has no point to it, what is the point of responding to it in any meaningful way.
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;

Here is the quote you made up contained in that post "absence of physical evidence prove crime" . You cannot show anywhere that I said that because you made it up. It is even grammatically incorrect, it should be proves crime not prove crime. You wrote that, I did not. You make up quotes and then call me a liar :?

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.

Why do ask if the KKK holding Holcaust Hoax placards and doing Nazi salutes are anti-semitic, pro-nazi deniers? I am trying to understand that. It very much comes over that you do not believe they are as your first response to the photos was to say "Nessie, you mean it seriously?" (Post #41). Yes I do mean it, seriously they are anti-semitic, pro-nazi, deniers. For you to doubt that is very odd.

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.

OK, so does that mean if you show me an image that does not suit my arguments, I can ignore questions about it?
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 4:56 pm

Bob wrote:
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?

If people saw a chamber being sealed and belived the seal was hermetic, then I could see how they can come to the conclusion the reason for doing such is to create a vacuum, as you need a completely air tight seal to create a vacuum. Steam is a gas as are exhaust fumes, so I can see how people thought the gas being used was steam.
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?

No, the evidence on ARC as to how the chambers works as it shows how to put lethal gas into a room and then vent it afterwards. I have already told you before it is easy to make a lethal gas chamber, you could do it in your own house or car.

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. - and could be mistaken and they were petrol

-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; - the chamber no longer exists, so how can you say it did not have such a window?

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

-chambers has no vent for removal of gas, so Nessie has problem with pressure in gas chamber. - no I do not as I have always said you can introduce enough lethal gas to kill without making any great difference to the pressure. Otherwise how do people manage to commit suicide or die in rooms or cars from lethal fumes?

-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) - all you need to do is introduce sufficient fumes to a lethal level through out the room. That it is not 'balanced' is not an issue so long as all parts of the room have lethal levels of fumes.

-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. - I don't understand that claim. The modle is made up from witness descriptions

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?

Simple, showing one room in one building is not a lethal gas chamber does not mean that there were no rooms in any buildings which were lethal gas chambers.
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 5:15 pm

Nessie wrote:I can't give you names, but I did show you examples which you also asked for. I also gave an explanation of why people view denial and revisionist as in itself being anti-semitic. What have I dodged?
You can´t give names, but you know that revisionist are anti semitic or neonazis as you claimed here, ok.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271338" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; You are not even able to show me what is difference between denier and revisionist as you claimed.

I asked for examples of revisionists and not deniers, why you ignore my quotes which proves this? Nessie, can you please admit that I did not ask for picture of your alleged deniers but for example of revisionist? You really don´t see it in my repeated quotes here:?

"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;

"Can you back up your claim, that reason why revisionists say what they say is what Nessie and you mentioned and that they said something what Nessie and you mentioned? Show me some example please."
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 07#p271352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is my last try using silly enlarged letters to be sure that Nessie see it.
Nessie wrote:What have I dodged?
You dodged this "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:I am very patient with you and try my best to follow what you say, but sometimes it is very difficult. I try to answer your questions and then you accuse me of not answering them as you claim that is not what you meant. So be prepared for lots of clarification questions from now on.
I am patient too.

Not true, I complain only if you dodge or if you answer different subject than is in the question, you do both of these very often.

I have no problem with clarification questions.

Nessie wrote:Please give me an example of supposed false logic.
For example, how did you arrive to your conclusion that these men are holocaust deniers and not revisionists...?
Nessie wrote:If something does not make sense or has no point to it, what is the point of responding to it in any meaningful way.
You again dodged this issue of term "antisemitism"
Nessie wrote:Here is the quote you made up contained in that post "absence of physical evidence prove crime" . You cannot show anywhere that I said that because you made it up. It is even grammatically incorrect, it should be proves crime not prove crime. You wrote that, I did not. You make up quotes and then call me a liar :?
I based this quote "Nessie claim that absence of physical evidence prove crime" on these Nessie´s quote "There may be no physical evidence or it has been destroyed." and because Nessie refused to explain me who destroyed this evidence which doesn´t exist, my quote is still valid, becuase the only logical explanation of Nessie´s quote about destroying, is that "Germans destroyed physical evidence of their crime, so absence of these evidence prove that has been detroyed by criminals to hide their crime". Nessie can clarify his postition to prove that "Nessie claim that absence of physical evidence prove crime" is free invention from Bob.
Nessie wrote:Why do ask if the KKK holding Holcaust Hoax placards and doing Nazi salutes are anti-semitic, pro-nazi deniers? I am trying to understand that. It very much comes over that you do not believe they are as your first response to the photos was to say "Nessie, you mean it seriously?" (Post #41). Yes I do mean it, seriously they are anti-semitic, pro-nazi, deniers. For you to doubt that is very odd.
What this has to do with the fact that you freely invented my quote without single piece of evidence?

Nessie choped my quote, i actually said this:
Nessie, you mean it seriously? Ok, name the revisionists from this picture to back up your claims, thanks.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271532" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nessie, I demanded example of revisionist whole the time, how many quotes i need to repeat to force you admit that you are wrong from the beginning?
For you to doubt that is very odd.
Again strawman, I never expressed any opinions about these men, i laready said this many times and Nessie still ignores it.
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:
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.
OK, so does that mean if you show me an image that does not suit my arguments, I can ignore questions about it?
What arguments? You want to know who are these peoples, but i can´t tell you what they are since I see only photo, I need more than photo to judge peoples on the photo. You have no problem to label them as neonazis, antisetmies or what with using just one picture, but I need more, so deal with it.

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 6:06 pm

First, i must say that I have lot of work to take you seriously especially in this comment.
Nessie wrote:If people saw a chamber being sealed and belived the seal was hermetic, then I could see how they can come to the conclusion the reason for doing such is to create a vacuum, as you need a completely air tight seal to create a vacuum. Steam is a gas as are exhaust fumes, so I can see how people thought the gas being used was steam.
So witnesses which spent months in extermination camp did mistake visible exhaust smelling fumes for invisible vacuum, this is possible, correct?

Steam is gas as are engine exhaust fumes...no further comment needed.

What about other killing methods? Quicklime is the same as engine exhaust fume?
Nessie wrote:No, the evidence on ARC as to how the chambers works as it shows how to put lethal gas into a room and then vent it afterwards. I have already told you before it is easy to make a lethal gas chamber, you could do it in your own house or car. [/color]
Why Nessies´s evidence/witness on ARC does not reflect what I see as CAD model?

Let see below what Nessie or ARC know about how easy is to make a gas chamber shown here
http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/ ... ebcad.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nessie wrote:-his source speaks about diesel engines. - and could be mistaken and they were petrol
I need your clarification, they "could be" or they are mistaken?

How did you arrive to your conclusion, you have better knowledge than popular ARC page or witnesses which spent time in gas chambers?
Nessie wrote:-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; - the chamber no longer exists, so how can you say it did not have such a window?
Pardon? I look at your ARC model and see no roof window, adress it again.
Nessie wrote:-pipes with showers can be easily demolished by victims and exhaust pipes can be blocked so no gassing possible. - prove that please
It looks like that Nessie don´t believe that these ridiculous pipes could be demolished with just using weight of the bodies. Why don´t you try it yourself Nessie, this would be the best proof for you if you don´t believe me, correct?

If Nessie refuse and don´t believe me and want to claim that these pipes are propably magic, no problem, he can tell me what prevent victims from blocking these shower heads. ;)
Nessie wrote:-chambers has no vent for removal of gas, so Nessie has problem with pressure in gas chamber. - no I do not as I have always said you can introduce enough lethal gas to kill without making any great difference to the pressure. Otherwise how do people manage to commit suicide or die in rooms or cars from lethal fumes?
Can Nessie tell me what is lethal level and what his evidence told him about the time which was needed to kill peoples?

I already said to Nessie, that cars are not hermetically sealed.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p270370" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nessie wrote:-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) - all you need to do is introduce sufficient fumes to a lethal level through out the room. That it is not 'balanced' is not an issue so long as all parts of the room have lethal levels of fumes.
About lethal level see above.

Regarding the balance, Nessie, can you tell me how lethal would be first chamber and how lethal would be last (fifth) chamber in these ARC Treblinka II chambers?
Nessie wrote:-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. - I don't understand that claim. The modle is made up from witness descriptions
Maybe you should read the description of all witness listed in your source.

Looking forward to your answers since you believe it so you are able to show me how this operated, correct?
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote: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?
Simple, showing one room in one building is not a lethal gas chamber does not mean that there were no rooms in any buildings which were lethal gas chambers.
But question was different Nessie, I wanted to know the reason why you stopped to believe in Krema II and why you still believe in Treblinka II, don´t dodge it please.

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 6:45 pm

I have already given you an example of a revisionist being anti-semitic, pro Nazi and Hilter apologist.

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

Remember "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"

You said "You dodged this "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?" But I have repeatedly said it shows a link, an example of deniers who are also pro-Nazi and anti-semitic.

You said "Not true, I complain only if you dodge or if you answer different subject than is in the question, you do both of these very often." Fine, so how about one or two questions at a time, rather than the many multiples you come out with. Check out this thread http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17559" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; as an example.

Regarding supposed false logic you stated "For example, how did you arrive to your conclusion that these men are holocaust deniers and not revisionists...?" I reached that conclusion because of "Holocaust Gigantic Zionist Hoax" and "There was no Jewish Holocaust" "Holocaust is a lie, Zionist persecution of Germans". To deny there was a Holocaust is Holocaust denial and that is their clear message. For you to question that you will need a lot of evidence to show how they are not deniers, otherwise your logic is at fault.

You can go on all you want about your idea of anti-semitism, when I use it I mean the commonly known and standard dictionary defintion of prejudice etc against the Jews. No dodging, I have clearly shown my position on this matter.

You said

"I based this quote "Nessie claim that absence of physical evidence prove crime" on these Nessie´s quote "There may be no physical evidence or it has been destroyed." and because Nessie refused to explain me who destroyed this evidence which doesn´t exist, my quote is still valid, becuase the only logical explanation of Nessie´s quote about destroying, is that "Germans destroyed physical evidence of their crime, so absence of these evidence prove that has been detroyed by criminals to hide their crime". Nessie can clarify his postition to prove that "Nessie claim that absence of physical evidence prove crime" is free invention from Bob."

How can you base a quote on something I have never said? It is not a quote, you made it up. You have then tied yourself in knots trying to explain why you said what you did and indeed you have now made up another quote "Germans destroyed physical evidence of their crime, so absence of these evidence prove that has been detroyed by criminals to hide their crime". I have already given you clarification, in the very next post #108 but since you keep repeating this falsehood here is a clear rebuttal

THE ABSCENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT PROVE A CRIME.

Now stop making up quotes and misrepresenting what my position is. You claim I have made up quotes, but I have not. I have answered questions in the belief you mean one thing, for you to then come out and say another. There is a language and garmmar issue here, so that is going to happen.

Chopping quotes is fine where the meaning is not altered. So when you said "Nessie, you mean it seriously? Ok, name the revisionists from this picture to back up your claims, thanks." I concentrated on the first part showing I was being serious and frankly the second was ignored as it would be impossible to name the men in the photo as you well know.

You have expressed an opinion on the men in the photo by calling into question whether they are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi, Holocaust deniers and saying you need more evidence they are as they present themselves.
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 7:09 pm

Bob wrote:First, i must say that I have lot of work to take you seriously especially in this comment.
Nessie wrote:If people saw a chamber being sealed and belived the seal was hermetic, then I could see how they can come to the conclusion the reason for doing such is to create a vacuum, as you need a completely air tight seal to create a vacuum. Steam is a gas as are exhaust fumes, so I can see how people thought the gas being used was steam.
So witnesses which spent months in extermination camp did mistake visible exhaust smelling fumes for invisible vacuum, this is possible, correct?

Steam is gas as are engine exhaust fumes...no further comment needed.

What about other killing methods? Quicklime is the same as engine exhaust fume?

That is you just making up rubbish. I cannot take your response seriously
Nessie wrote:No, the evidence on ARC as to how the chambers works as it shows how to put lethal gas into a room and then vent it afterwards. I have already told you before it is easy to make a lethal gas chamber, you could do it in your own house or car. [/color]
Why Nessies´s evidence/witness on ARC does not reflect what I see as CAD model?

Please give examples of that

Let see below what Nessie or ARC know about how easy is to make a gas chamber shown here
http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/ ... ebcad.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nessie wrote:-his source speaks about diesel engines. - and could be mistaken and they were petrol
I need your clarification, they "could be" or they are mistaken?

OK, mistaken.

How did you arrive to your conclusion, you have better knowledge than popular ARC page or witnesses which spent time in gas chambers?

I don't really follow what you mean there, but no I do not have better knowledge than them.
Nessie wrote:-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; - the chamber no longer exists, so how can you say it did not have such a window?
Pardon? I look at your ARC model and see no roof window, adress it again.

It is not my ARC model. Witnesses describe there being windows, why ARC have not put one on their model is a question for you to put to them and not me.

Nessie wrote:-pipes with showers can be easily demolished by victims and exhaust pipes can be blocked so no gassing possible. - prove that please
It looks like that Nessie don´t believe that these ridiculous pipes could be demolished with just using weight of the bodies. Why don´t you try it yourself Nessie, this would be the best proof for you if you don´t believe me, correct?

It depends on the metal used, fixtures and fittings, you cannot prove that people could have demolished the pipes. It is perfectly easy to put in a pipe and a fixture that is strong enough to resist attack.

If Nessie refuse and don´t believe me and want to claim that these pipes are propably magic, no problem, he can tell me what prevent victims from blocking these shower heads. ;)

Multiple large shower heads high enough that to reach them you would have to lift people who then have nothing to cover the head with. I would like you to expalin how they would prevent gas getting into the room through the shower heads.
Nessie wrote:-chambers has no vent for removal of gas, so Nessie has problem with pressure in gas chamber. - no I do not as I have always said you can introduce enough lethal gas to kill without making any great difference to the pressure. Otherwise how do people manage to commit suicide or die in rooms or cars from lethal fumes?
Can Nessie tell me what is lethal level and what his evidence told him about the time which was needed to kill peoples?

No, I just know such fumes are lethal, why do you ask? Why don't you look up the answer yourself?

I already said to Nessie, that cars are not hermetically sealed.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p270370" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes and I have already said that does not stop people dying in them with exhaust fumes.
Nessie wrote:-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) - all you need to do is introduce sufficient fumes to a lethal level through out the room. That it is not 'balanced' is not an issue so long as all parts of the room have lethal levels of fumes.
About lethal level see above.

Regarding the balance, Nessie, can you tell me how lethal would be first chamber and how lethal would be last (fifth) chamber in these ARC Treblinka II chambers?

No I cannot. Is this supposed to mean it is not possible?
Nessie wrote:-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. - I don't understand that claim. The modle is made up from witness descriptions
Maybe you should read the description of all witness listed in your source.

Looking forward to your answers since you believe it so you are able to show me how this operated, correct?

The real issue is was there one and it worked. Exactly how it worked, since it is not there anymore is a matter of conjecture.
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote: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?
Simple, showing one room in one building is not a lethal gas chamber does not mean that there were no rooms in any buildings which were lethal gas chambers.
But question was different Nessie, I wanted to know the reason why you stopped to believe in Krema II and why you still believe in Treblinka II, don´t dodge it please.
No dodging, the answer is in the relevant thread, look it up.
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 8:03 pm

An example of a revisionist who is racist and an anti-Semite. He is also one of the main Hitler apologists as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#cite_note-84" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Racism and antisemitism

Irving has expressed racist and antisemitic sentiments, both publicly and privately. Irving has often expressed his belief in the theory of a sinister Jewish conspiracy ruling the world, and that the belief in the reality of Holocaust was manufactured as part of the same alleged conspiracy.[42] Irving used the label "traditional enemies of the truth" to describe Jews, and in a 1963 article about a speech by Sir Oswald Mosley wrote that "Yellow Star did not make a showing".[42] In 1992, Irving stated that "...the Jews are very foolish not to abandon the gas chamber theory while they still have time" and claimed he "foresees a new wave of antisemitism" the world over due to Jewish "exploitation of the Holocaust myth".[74] During an interview with the American writer Ron Rosenbaum, Irving stated his belief that Jews were his "traditional enemy".[91] In one interview cited in the libel lawsuit, Irving also stated that he would be "willing to put [his] signature" to the "fact" that "a great deal of control over the world is exercised by Jews".[92]

Several of these statements were cited by the judge's decision in Irving's lawsuit against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt,[92] leading the judge to conclude that Irving "had on many occasions spoken in terms which are plainly racist."[93] One example brought was his diary entry for 17 September 1994, in which Irving wrote about a ditty he composed for his young daughter "when halfbreed children are wheeled past":

I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.

Christopher Hitchens wrote that Irving sang the rhyme to Hitchens following dinner in the family's Washington apartment.[94]"
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 8:18 pm

Another example of a Holcaust revisionsit, neo-Nazi and anti-semite

http://carolynyeager.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In the first half hour, Carolyn reads from The Fire: The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945; afterwards, William Finck joins Carolyn Yeager in a bold discussion of the detrimental effect of Jewish influence on white, Western society and why there is no other solution but to openly oppose it, ignoring the tiresome charge of “antisemitism.” Topics include:

News stories reveal the constant effort at control by Jews;
Jews liberally slander Whites but howl at the slightest offense from a White;
The aim of Jewish policies and programs is to protect themselves from facing the consequences of their many crimes and general wrongdoing;
Finck’s Saxon Messenger monthly newsletter;
Germany and the Jewish Problem by Dr. F.K.Wiebe;
And much more."

"Carolyn talks about her important themes for the new year:

“Holocaust” and WWII revisionism — Guy Walters is attacking Denis Avey’s book;
Resistance to the economic slavery under central banking debt creation systems, Wall Street manipulation and the “super security state;”
Defense of our right to have our own territories and not be overwhelmed by non-White immigration;
Increased attacks against the so-called Far Right, with the purpose of destroying all dissent to Globalist hegemony;
Carolyn reads some passages from the book The Fire, which she will continue in future shows.
Call from Frank leads to discussion of Franklin Roosevelt and the American way."
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 8:32 pm

An example of a Holocaust revisonist/denier with decidedly anti-semitic views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah ... and_Israel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In August 2006, the ‘Deutsche Welle’ citing AFP reported that Ahmadinejad had written a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel suggesting that the victorious Allied powers in World War II may have invented the Holocaust to embarrass Germany.[70][71] "Is it not a reasonable possibility that some countries that had won the war made up this excuse to constantly embarrass the defeated people ... to bar their progress," Ahmadinejad reportedly wrote in the letter. Merkel indicated that she would not formally respond to the letter, saying it contained "totally unacceptable" criticism of Israel and the Jewish state's right to exist.

In a September 2006 interview with NBC Nightly News Anchor Brian Williams, Ahmadinejad said that when he called the Holocaust a myth he was merely trying to communicate that it was not just Jews that died, but millions of people and he wants to know why it is the Palestinian people that have to pay for the Nazis' slaughter of the Jewish people.[72]

In the second World War, over 60 million people lost their lives. They were all human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed have become so prominent and important? Do you think that the 60 million who lost their lives were all at the result of warfare alone? There were two million that were part of the military at the time, perhaps altogether, 50 million civilians with no roles in the war – Christians, Muslims. They were all killed. The second and more important question that I raised was, if this event happened, and if it is a historical event, then we should allow everyone to research it and study it. The more research and studies are done, the clearer the issue gets. We still leave open to further studies absolute knowledge of science or math. Historical events are always subject to revisions, and reviews and studies. We're still revising our thoughts about what happened over thousands of years ago. Why is it that researchers are jailed? Why is researching this issue prohibitited? Where as we can openly question God, the prophet, concepts such as freedom and democracy? And the third question that I raised in this regard: assuming that this happened, where did it happen? Did the Palestinian people have anything to do with it? Why should the Palestinians pay for it now? Five million displaced Palestinian people is what I'm talking about. Over 60 years of living under terror. Losing the lives of thousands of dear ones. And homes that are destroyed on a daily basis over people's heads. You might argue that the Jews have the right to have a government. We're not against that. But where? At a place where their people were – several people will vote for them, and where they can govern.

At a Holocaust conference at Sharif University of Technology in Tehran on January 27, 2009, Ahmadinejad stated:

For 60 years they allowed no one to question and cast doubt on the logic of the Holocaust and its very essence – because if the truth were to be exposed, nothing would remain of their logic of liberal democracy. It is the very advocates of liberal democracy who defend the Holocaust, who have sanctified it to the point where none may enter. Breaking the padlock of the Holocaust and reexamining it will be tantamount to cutting the vital arteries of the Zionist regime. It will destroy the philosophical foundation and raison d'être of this regime...I invite the dear researchers, intellectuals, young people and students, who are the trailblazers, to reexamine not only the Holocaust, but also its consequences and aftermath and inform others of their studies and research. Let us not forget that more than ever before, the Zionist network, which came up with the issue of the Holocaust, must be exposed, and be presented to the peoples as it really is.[73]

In early June 2009, Ahmadinejad described Israel as "the most criminal regime in human history" and spoke about the "great deception of the Holocaust" in a speech quoted by IRIB.[74]

At the September 2009 Quds Day ceremonies in Tehran, he stated Israel was created on "a lie and a mythical claim,"[75] that the Western powers "launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they put on a show and then they support the Jews"[76] – what the New York Times considered "among his harshest statements on the topic,"[77] and one immediately condemned by the US, UK, French and German governments.[76][78]"
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 8:45 pm

Another example of a revisionist with anti-Semitic views

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... mark-weber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Around the world awareness is growing that the ‘Holocaust' campaign is a major weapon in the Jewish-Zionist arsenal, that it is used to justify otherwise unjustifiable Israeli policies, and as a powerful tool for blackmailing enormous sums of money from Americans and Europeans."

"The most direct and obvious victims of Jewish-Zionist power are, of course, the Palestinians who live under Israel's harsh rule. But as the IHR has made clear for years, in truth we Americans are also victims — through the Jewish-Zionist grip on the media, and the organized Jewish-Zionist corruption of our political system."

"[W]hat is happening is a worldwide conflict now, a global conflict that involves all of humanity. … [W]hether you are a conservative or a liberal, whether your primary loyalties are to your religion, to your ethnic group, to your country, to your heritage in whatever form, you will come up inevitably against this great Jewish Zionist power. … [W]hat we are involved in, is a global struggle … for the interests of us all and the interests of humanity."

"[D]espite a discouraging record of achievement, some revisionists insist that their work is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power. … In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help."
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 9:15 pm

Here are two more examples of people who have made Holocaust denial, anti-semitism and neo-Nazis comments and writing, so associating all three as the same.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 08396.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The views of Nick Griffin leader of the right wing British National Party on Jews and the Holocaust, which although he has changed his mind at times fact is he has still made anti-semitic comments and denied the Holcaust.

Then there is David Duke, who whilst promoting freedom of speech (good)

http://www.davidduke.com/general/1530_1530.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

has done so whilst associating with revisionism and denial and he has said

"Duke: "Obviously, Jews gain certain advantages by promoting the Holocaust idea. It inspires tremendous financial aid for Israel. It makes organized Jewry almost immune from criticism. Whether the Holocaust is real or not, the Jews clearly have a motive for fostering the idea that it occurred. Not only do they have a motive, but they have the means with the media domination they now hold.

Hustler: "Do you really doubt the Holocaust occurred?

Duke: "Let's put it this way. I question whether 6 million Jews actually died in Nazi death camps. There are two major sources for Holocaust stories. One is the Nuremburg war-crimes trial, which has been shown by all honest historians to be a farce of justice. Another source is the great body of literature and media work, and at least 90% of that material is from biased Jewish sources."

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/duke ... ocaust.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 9:26 pm

Another example of a revisionist and his views on the Jews

http://vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF051109.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Faurisson: The Jews' power stems directly from the Western world's near-total belief in the phenomenal lie of the "Holocaust". You needn't look any further.

Q: Mr Faurisson, I know that like some other revisionists, such as Ernest Zundel, you have been attacked and beaten by Jewish militia for saying that the Holocaust is "the hoax of the twentieth century" and asking "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber! Stop giving me just words". If the Holocaust story is true, why don't the Jews tolerate other points of view on this issue?

Faurisson: The Jews do not tolerate any questioning of the "Holocaust". Against the revisionists they use physical violence and judicial repression because, on the level of historical and scientific argumentation, they have been defeated hands down by the revisionists. We have been able to expose their lies, one by one. Therefore Jews and Zionists seek refuge in violence and intimidation. They treat revisionists like Palestinians.

Q: What has to be done on the international scene by Islamic countries to oppose such practices?

Faurisson: My answer is simple: Islamic countries need to destroy the Jews' and Zionists' veritable "atomic weapon", that is, the appalling and gigantic imposture of the "Holocaust" that up to now has been poisoning the Western world and is henceforth imposed on us by the UN in the entire world. In your public demonstrations and talks, repeat after the revisionists: "The 'Holocaust' is a lie". Have the courage to proclaim this salutary truth."
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 9:52 pm

Nessie wrote:An example of a revisionist who is racist and an anti-Semite. He is also one of the main Hitler apologists as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#cite_note-84" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
First, can you tell me where is your evidence that Irving is revisionist? Can you quote his revisionist publications about holocaust, or can you quote at least some "non-revisionist" publications about holocaust?

Second, pardon, Nessie, but according to your flawed definition, this man is denier and not revisionist, correct?
Nessie wrote:Another example of a Holcaust revisionsit, neo-Nazi and anti-semite

http://carolynyeager.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Quote passage which is antisemitic or neo-Nazi, thanks. Since your term "anti-semitic" has been proved to be false, you actually need to quote only neo-Nazi passage, correct? Thanks.

According to your flawed definition, she is actually denier or revisionist and how did you arrive to your conclusion?
Nessie wrote:An example of a Holocaust revisonist/denier with decidedly anti-semitic views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... and_Israel
First, can you name his revisionist publications or research to show me how did you arrive to your conclusion that he is revisionist?

According to your flawed definition, he is actually denier, correct?

Aside the fact, that your term is false, where do you see "anti-semitism" in your quote from wikipedia? I don´t want original source to see correct translation this time, all what I want to see is some "antisemitic" quote, thanks.

Before I will adress rest of your comments, I would like to solve this.

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 10:28 pm

Nessie wrote:That is you just making up rubbish. I cannot take your response seriously
No Nessie, you can´t adress my quote since you know very well that you are not able to adress it, your claims are absurd, so you use excuse again how to dodge it.
Nessie wrote:Please give examples of that
For example the FIRST passage about your alleged gas chambers.

"1. Access to building: The victims reached the gas chambers through the "Tube".

Is impossible that you could overlooked it, you simple ingore ti or what?
Nessie wrote:OK, mistaken.
In fact, we can stop our discussion now since the only Nessie´s source is simply mistaken about murder weapon method, the most important aspect about gas chambers, this does not sound very reliable and Nessie have no problem with this as I see.
Nessie wrote:I don't really follow what you mean there, but no I do not have better knowledge than them.
So you admit that you don´t have better knowledge, sorry for my following words, but how the hell can you know that they are mistaken when you don´t have better knowledge?
Nessie wrote:It is not my ARC model. Witnesses describe there being windows, why ARC have not put one on their model is a question for you to put to them and not me.
[/color]
First, i proved that you argument "the chamber no longer exists, so how can you say it did not have such a window?" is false.

Second, you presented this model to me as Nazi homicidal gas chambers, is "buck-passing" (is this correct term?) to claim, "ask ARC and not me".

Are you at least able to tell me what you think about this missing window?
Nessie wrote:It depends on the metal used, fixtures and fittings, you cannot prove that people could have demolished the pipes. It is perfectly easy to put in a pipe and a fixture that is strong enough to resist attack.
So can you tell me what magic metal or fixtures are in those chambers to dismiss my argument that body weight cannot easily demolish these thin pipes by simply hanging on them? Pardon, but I see only one "screw" like object which is visible on small metal pieces which holds pipes.
Nessie wrote:Multiple large shower heads high enough that to reach them you would have to lift people who then have nothing to cover the head with. I would like you to expalin how they would prevent gas getting into the room through the shower heads.
Nessie, this is absurd, please, check your gas chamber source again, here you can see scale
http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/ ... bcad03.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So is clear that showerheads could be easily blocked without need to lift somebody as you can see here when you look on that door from previous link from inside.
http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/ ... bcad06.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pardon, but did you actually saw your own link or this is some kind of joke or test of patience?
Nessie wrote:No, I just know such fumes are lethal, why do you ask? Why don't you look up the answer yourself?
Why? I simply want to know if you know what are you talking about, so you can´t and your claim about lethal fumes is thus flawed because you don´t know what is lethal level, how much time was needed to kill peoples in these alleged chambers and etc., thanks.

You know, that fumes from diesel or allegedly petrol engines are somehow lethal, that´s all, pardon, but this is very vague and in the other words, useless.
Nessie wrote:Yes and I have already said that does not stop people dying in them with exhaust fumes
Somebody disputed this? No, correct? Problem for you is that issue of pressure in cars is irrelevant since cars are not hermetically sealed, don´t know where is your problem to understand it and why you still repeat this.
Nessie wrote:No I cannot. Is this supposed to mean it is not possible?
You can´t, ok.

Pardon Nessie, but you presented it to me as proof and you believe it, you should know it, correct? I am just ordinary dude who don´t believe it.
Nessie wrote:The real issue is was there one and it worked. Exactly how it worked, since it is not there anymore is a matter of conjecture.
The true real issue is that what you have presented here can´t work as homicidal gas chamber as holocaust story claims, thus gassing is not possible, this is real issue.
Nessie wrote:No dodging, the answer is in the relevant thread, look it up.
Really? Good, quote it here, where is problem, I have no problem to quote everything for you.

User avatar
slapstick
Poster
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:11 am
Location: Montréal

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

Post by slapstick » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:48 pm

Bob (et al), you spend a lot of time defending the Nazis. What can you possibly expect to achieve by doing this? Do you think the world open their eyes, and see that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy after all? Do you think the Nazi ideals will become labelled as "okay"?

Again, what on Earth can you possibly hope to achieve by denying or attempting to revise the history?
"Those who cannot understand how to put their thoughts on ice should not enter into the heat of debate."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

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 10:59 pm

slapstick wrote:Bob (et al), you spend a lot of time defending the Nazis. What can you possibly expect to achieve by doing this? Do you think the world open their eyes, and see that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy after all? Do you think the Nazi ideals will become labelled as "okay"?


I am curious how did you arrive to your conclusion that reason why I say what I say is to defend the Nazis?
slapstick wrote:Again, what on Earth can you possibly hope to achieve by denying or attempting to revise the history?


The truth?

User avatar
slapstick
Poster
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:11 am
Location: Montréal

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

Post by slapstick » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:10 pm

Bob wrote:
I am curious how did you arrive to your conclusion that reason why I say what I say is to defend the Nazis?
Answering a question with a question is bad practice. Since you asked however, your defense of the Nazis is quite clear in your statements. When you demand more proof than any scientist, court of law or reasonable person would expect, it is clearly indicative of an underlying dogmatic belief. In this case, it is clear that you are looking to exonerate, if only in part, the Nazi actions during WWII.
Bob wrote:
The truth?
I disagree. You're not looking for the truth, you're looking to be right. There is a drastic difference.
"Those who cannot understand how to put their thoughts on ice should not enter into the heat of debate."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

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 11:24 pm

slapstick wrote:
Bob wrote:
I am curious how did you arrive to your conclusion that reason why I say what I say is to defend the Nazis?
Answering a question with a question is bad practice. Since you asked however, your defense of the Nazis is quite clear in your statements. When you demand more proof than any scientist, court of law or reasonable person would expect, it is clearly indicative of an underlying dogmatic belief. In this case, it is clear that you are looking to exonerate, if only in part, the Nazi actions during WWII.
I must answer with question, I cannot answer your question when your question is logical fallacy since I never claimed that I say this to defend the Nazis. Is clear? If you believe it...your matter, (edit - I doubt that you can quote just one single statement in which I defend the Nazis.)

More proof than any scientist or court and so on, I doubt you can back up this statement.

You missed that I do not demand proof that this happened as you claim, more than one week I am trying to see if this is at least possible and not if this happened. Look above on alleged chambers, then on my comments and then tell me again that I demand more proof than scientists/courts and etc. You are for sure able to explain me what Nessie cant explain. If not, no problem, but you can hardly doubt my demands.
slapstick wrote:
Bob wrote:
The truth?
I disagree. You're not looking for the truth, you're looking to be right. There is a drastic difference.
So you know better than me what are my motives, fascinating. Aside this, dont know what is wrong on being right.

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 » Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:19 am

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:An example of a revisionist who is racist and an anti-Semite. He is also one of the main Hitler apologists as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#cite_note-84" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
First, can you tell me where is your evidence that Irving is revisionist? Can you quote his revisionist publications about holocaust, or can you quote at least some "non-revisionist" publications about holocaust?

Second, pardon, Nessie, but according to your flawed definition, this man is denier and not revisionist, correct?
Nessie wrote:Another example of a Holcaust revisionsit, neo-Nazi and anti-semite

http://carolynyeager.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Quote passage which is antisemitic or neo-Nazi, thanks. Since your term "anti-semitic" has been proved to be false, you actually need to quote only neo-Nazi passage, correct? Thanks.

According to your flawed definition, she is actually denier or revisionist and how did you arrive to your conclusion?
Nessie wrote:An example of a Holocaust revisonist/denier with decidedly anti-semitic views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... and_Israel
First, can you name his revisionist publications or research to show me how did you arrive to your conclusion that he is revisionist?

According to your flawed definition, he is actually denier, correct?

Aside the fact, that your term is false, where do you see "anti-semitism" in your quote from wikipedia? I don´t want original source to see correct translation this time, all what I want to see is some "antisemitic" quote, thanks.

Before I will adress rest of your comments, I would like to solve this.
For David Irvine and revisionism, read Hitler's War. OK, so you say he is a denier, but everywhere I read about him, he is described as a revisionist.

For Carolyn Yeager, read the quotes provided for anti-semitic remarks.

For Ahmadinejad, he hosts Holocaust revision conferences and has been in trouble with the UN for anti-semitic remarks. OK, so you say denier and he probably is, but it is another example of how revisionism/denial are linked to anti-semitism. Here are more of his quotes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... uotes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regarding anti-semitic, that you regard the term as false does not mean it cannot be used as a descriptive as it has a commonly known meaning which you will find in most English language dictionaries. There is no problem to solve apart from the one of your invention to dodge the issue of anti-semitism in revisionism and denial.
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 » Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:23 am

Bob, please respond to post #85 and the issue of you making quotes up about me.

"You said

"I based this quote "Nessie claim that absence of physical evidence prove crime" on these Nessie´s quote "There may be no physical evidence or it has been destroyed." and because Nessie refused to explain me who destroyed this evidence which doesn´t exist, my quote is still valid, becuase the only logical explanation of Nessie´s quote about destroying, is that "Germans destroyed physical evidence of their crime, so absence of these evidence prove that has been detroyed by criminals to hide their crime". Nessie can clarify his postition to prove that "Nessie claim that absence of physical evidence prove crime" is free invention from Bob."

How can you base a quote on something I have never said? It is not a quote, you made it up. You have then tied yourself in knots trying to explain why you said what you did and indeed you have now made up another quote "Germans destroyed physical evidence of their crime, so absence of these evidence prove that has been detroyed by criminals to hide their crime". I have already given you clarification, in the very next post #108 but since you keep repeating this falsehood here is a clear rebuttal

THE ABSCENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT PROVE A CRIME.

Now stop making up quotes and misrepresenting what my position is. You claim I have made up quotes, but I have not. I have answered questions in the belief you mean one thing, for you to then come out and say another. There is a language and garmmar issue here, so that is going to happen."


That is important especially if you are now also going to make up a new definition for anti-semitism. Making things up to try and prove something is a clear and epic fail.
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 » Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:34 pm

Nessie wrote:For David Irvine and revisionism, read Hitler's War. OK, so you say he is a denier, but everywhere I read about him, he is described as a revisionist.
Hitler´s War from year 1977,ok, did you read this book when you recommended it to me as proof of revisionism from Irving?

Here is oquote from your wikipedia source from article about your book.

Lucy Dawidowicz
"Dawidowicz wrote that she believed that the term revisionist was inappropriate for Irving because revisionism is a legitimate historical method whereas Irving was not entitled to call himself a historian, revisonist or otherwise, and only deserved the label apologist"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s ... _criticism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You propably missed that even court during Irving x Lipstadt trial officialy labeled David Irving as Holocaust denier, feel free to see it here in your wikipedia source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_P ... t#Claimant" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you see, something is rotten in your claim about revisionist. "OK, so you say he is a denier" - Pardon? you say it according to your definition, I don´t care who he is, I am again interested about your wrong evidence.

So again, do you still insist on your claim about Irving is an example of revisionist?
Nessie wrote:For Carolyn Yeager, read the quotes provided for anti-semitic remarks.
You dodged my points, since I see what you wrote, but placed my points anyway.
Nessie wrote:For Ahmadinejad, he hosts Holocaust revision conferences and has been in trouble with the UN for anti-semitic remarks. OK, so you say denier and he probably is, but it is another example of how revisionism/denial are linked to anti-semitism. Here are more of his quotes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... uotes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
First, what - "OK, so you say denier" - why you again assign you conclusions to me? According to your flawed definition, he is denier, you claim this, not me.

So, according to you he is denier, and thus false exmaple of revisionist.

Regarding to your quotes:

On Jews - Sept 2007
"I'm not anti-Jew. Jews are respected by everyone, like all human beings, and I respect them very much."

What a horrible "antisemitic" monster, correct? :lol: But you propably want to argue with quote from Sept 2009, correct?
Nessie wrote:Regarding anti-semitic, that you regard the term as false does not mean it cannot be used as a descriptive as it has a commonly known meaning which you will find in most English language dictionaries. There is no problem to solve apart from the one of your invention to dodge the issue of anti-semitism in revisionism and denial.
It could be be used as you wish, I only enjoy how peoples like you uses false term which is even itself discriminating and you just don´t bother about it ;)

Tell me more about my alleged invention and dodge, what I invented and dodged, quote me please.
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:"I based this quote "Nessie claim that absence of physical evidence prove crime" on these Nessie´s quote "There may be no physical evidence or it has been destroyed." and because Nessie refused to explain me who destroyed this evidence which doesn´t exist, my quote is still valid, becuase the only logical explanation of Nessie´s quote about destroying, is that "Germans destroyed physical evidence of their crime, so absence of these evidence prove that has been detroyed by criminals to hide their crime". Nessie can clarify his postition to prove that "Nessie claim that absence of physical evidence prove crime" is free invention from Bob."
How can you base a quote on something I have never said? It is not a quote, you made it up. You have then tied yourself in knots trying to explain why you said what you did and indeed you have now made up another quote "Germans destroyed physical evidence of their crime, so absence of these evidence prove that has been detroyed by criminals to hide their crime".
I based it clearly on your quote "There may be no physical evidence or it has been destroyed." " My quote is the only possible explanation of your claim, if you don´t agree, I challenge you again to clearly say who destroyed evidence in this quote from you to finally solve this issue which you still bring up when you are desperate. No dodging, if you refuse again, than is clear that you are afraid of something.
Nessie wrote:I have already given you clarification, in the very next post #108 but since you keep repeating this falsehood here is a clear rebuttal
You did not explain it in your post 108 here.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p270361" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nessie wrote:Now stop making up quotes and misrepresenting what my position is. You claim I have made up quotes, but I have not.
Of course this is not true, see again here.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271720" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nessie dodged impossible issue of proving that his ARC gas chambers in Treblinka II were at least capable to gas peoples as alleged.

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 » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:40 pm

What is quite clear when you do an internet search on quotes by Irvine etc is that at various times they have said things which can be seen as revisionist, apologist, denier, anti-semitic and not anti-semitic. Nick Griffin famously recanted his denial on Question Time, a political debate programme that he controversially appeared on. So just because Dawidowicz has decided Irvine is not a revisionist does not mean that is the end, no more debate.

Bob, you can resourt to your tactic of minute detail but all that means is you cannot see the wood for the trees. The big picture is that many of those associated with revisionism and denial are also associated with anti-semitism, pro or neo-Nazism and Hitler apologism. Those people say different things at different times and their positions can change and there is over lap between revisionism and denial. But they will forever be associated with anti-semitism etc because of what they have said. I am afraid mud sticks.

Re dodging, you have used that so often I cannot be bothered anymore. Stick to one topic that is relevant to the thread or start a new thread and I'll reply. Other than that you tactic of leaping about all over the place is tiresome. So regarding your comment about the gas chambers at Treblinka II, use the relevant thread. This thread is about denial being a faith or faith based system.

Regarding your made up quote about the destruction of evidence.If you want an opinion on who destroyed the evidence at the ARC camps or indeed anywhere else post it elsewhere. You are wrong about no rebuttal of your made up quote. Here in post #108 immediately after you made up the quote here was my response

"I have never claimed that te absence of phyisical evidence prove crime". That is not true and it is wrong of you to put that into quotes and attribute it to me."

Your next link is not to me making up a quote. There is no quote there. It is me stating what I think your position on the photo was, as I try to figure out what you are going on about, an issue I encouter all the time. Indeed you have since confirmed my position that you do not think the image is anti-semitic or nazi sympathising by later on saying you would need more evidence to say whether someone wearing a KKK uniform, doing a Hitler salute and carrying a banner stating the Holocaust is a hoax is anti-semitic, pro-Nazi or not. Here is the image again

http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/KKK_hol ... t_hoax.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

that you need more evidence about. :roll: For you to have doubts about that image, along with your stated position on the Holocaust, I can say you are a denier. But you do not seem to like that. Are you ashamed of your own beliefs?
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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:43 am

Nessie wrote:What is quite clear when you do an internet search on quotes by Irvine etc is that at various times they have said things which can be seen as revisionist, apologist, denier, anti-semitic and not anti-semitic. Nick Griffin famously recanted his denial on Question Time, a political debate programme that he controversially appeared on. So just because Dawidowicz has decided Irvine is not a revisionist does not mean that is the end, no more debate.
In the other words, you don´t know what Iriving is and i suspect you that you didn´t read that book, ok.
Nessie wrote:Bob, you can resourt to your tactic of minute detail but all that means is you cannot see the wood for the trees. The big picture is that many of those associated with revisionism and denial are also associated with anti-semitism, pro or neo-Nazism and Hitler apologism. Those people say different things at different times and their positions can change and there is over lap between revisionism and denial. But they will forever be associated with anti-semitism etc because of what they have said. I am afraid mud sticks.
Alleged big picture and your claims have nothing to do with the fact that you did not present even one single example of revisionist to back up your ad hominem accusation, ok. Hope you are not going to show me you legendary image of alleged deniers again.
Nessie wrote:Re dodging, you have used that so often I cannot be bothered anymore. Stick to one topic that is relevant to the thread or start a new thread and I'll reply. Other than that you tactic of leaping about all over the place is tiresome. So regarding your comment about the gas chambers at Treblinka II, use the relevant thread. This thread is about denial being a faith or faith based system.
Plainly speaking, Nessie accused me again, in this time of jumping to another subject when I clarly wasn´t the one who began this another subject. I only replied to this already started subject as proved here.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271848" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nessie, no need to start new thread, here is my relevant thread, you know very well that exist since you participated in it, so where is your problem to quote my comment and adress my points about chambers there instead of excuses and wrong accusation.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17691" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nessie wrote:Regarding your made up quote about the destruction of evidence.If you want an opinion on who destroyed the evidence at the ARC camps or indeed anywhere else post it elsewhere. You are wrong about no rebuttal of your made up quote. Here in post #108 immediately after you made up the quote here was my response
Why post it elsewhere, you summoned this theme here, you clearly brought non-relevant theme to this thread even when you wrongly accused me of this above about engines. So explain it here, tell me who destroyed this evidence, I wait for your explanation 14 days Nessie.
Nessie wrote:Your next link is not to me making up a quote. There is no quote there. It is me stating what I think your position on the photo was, as I try to figure out what you are going on about, an issue I encouter all the time. Indeed you have since confirmed my position that you do not think the image is anti-semitic or nazi sympathising by later on saying you would need more evidence to say whether someone wearing a KKK uniform, doing a Hitler salute and carrying a banner stating the Holocaust is a hoax is anti-semitic, pro-Nazi or not. Here is the image again
No, you clearly said that about your picture "Bob has been trying to claim is not nazi sympathetic or anti-semitic" which is pure invention without evidence, where is my quote which you used to make such an invention? Show me this alleged quote from me.

Hm, so your image again, ok, you again proved that there is something very bad with you, or your eyes, maybe I should had to use huge font and not only large.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p271863" 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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:12 am

I have shown you clear evidence of revisionists and deniers and people who could be either being anti-semitic, pro-Nazi and/or Hitler apologists. That you chose to reject that evidence shows your disregard for evidence that does not suit your position. You and other revisionist/deniers can also appear to move between the two positions depending on what suits.

In post #199 of the thread on proofs there was your exchange with OutOfBreath

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



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.

Bob
Valued Poster

Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:41 am

When I asked simple straight forward questions in post #53 here

" 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?"

You were unable to give straight answers as you did to Dan

"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."

If you went to court or a debate and presented and rejected evidence as you do, twist as you do, make up quotes as you do you would be laughed at or find yourself in contempt.

Are you a denier or a revisionist Bob?

(The answer to your deflection question about who destroyed the camps is in the thread on Treblinka II.)
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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:39 am

Nessie wrote:I have shown you clear evidence of revisionists and deniers and people who could be either being anti-semitic, pro-Nazi and/or Hitler apologists. That you chose to reject that evidence shows your disregard for evidence that does not suit your position. You and other revisionist/deniers can also appear to move between the two positions depending on what suits.
In the other words, you didn´t present any example of such a revisionist, everything had been refuted using evidence and even your own claim about who is revisionists and who not, thus you rejected your own examples. You can´t oppose this evidence, so what I see is another insulting comment.
When I asked simple straight forward questions in post #53 here

" 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?"

You were unable to give straight answers as you did to Dan

"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."
Nessie ignore that he asked me in the way which make an impression that I am what he wrote and that I sometime expressed such a opinions and that he want clarification, this is one of the most dishonest strawman i ever see, but Nessie has no problem to compare with "Dan" who used absolutely different questions as is clearly visible in quote from Nessie. Nessie if refuted again in his wrong claims.

All what was needed to get answer from me was to make questions in this way without any strawman.

"1 - do you think that somebody is anti-semitic when he/she do not like and mistrust Jews?"

But Nessie is not very bright as I see. So again, read my answers on your questions, you will not receive different response on your strawman questions no matter how many times you repeat them.
Nessie wrote:Are you a denier or a revisionist Bob?
I already answered long time ago, "call me as you wish" I do not use label to label myslef, I simply don´t care, suit yourself.
Nessie wrote:(The answer to your deflection question about who destroyed the camps is in the thread on Treblinka II.)
Ok, so please, quote your response here, thanks in advance.

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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:59 am

I do not accept your claim I have not given evidence of anti-semitism by revisionists. I do not accept your supposed refutation of such. The reason why I am doing that is because of they way you behave when shown evidence such as the image of the KKK. That you say you would need more evidence to say they are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi Holocaust deniers shows that if something does not suit your argument you dismiss and or dodge it. You need to deal with it. If you were showed an image like that at a debate or in a court and you said you were unsure of what it represented you would be laughed at.

Are you trying to claim the examples of revisionists being anti-semitic etc fail because you say they are not revisionists and are in fact deniers? Or are you saying what they have said is not anti-semitic etc?

What is wrong with an are you question? You have options, yes, no, still to make my mind up, bit of both etc. You are behaving as if I have said "you are a denier are you not?" which is not what I am asking you.

I will not answer your question about destruction of evidence here, especially since you have still failed to respond to my rebuttal of your made up quote and clear indication from the time you made it that it was wrong. I have answered it in another thread so you cannot use your tactic of deflection here.
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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:37 pm

Bobs position on this image

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.co ... denial.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is "I actually need more than one photo to judge peoples Nessie."

Indeed, despit all efforts to get an opinion he dodges the clear evidence shown by that image. Why are you unable to tacle the issues raised by that image?
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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:50 pm

Nessie wrote:I do not accept your claim I have not given evidence of anti-semitism by revisionists. I do not accept your supposed refutation of such. The reason why I am doing that is because of they way you behave when shown evidence such as the image of the KKK. That you say you would need more evidence to say they are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi Holocaust deniers shows that if something does not suit your argument you dismiss and or dodge it.


Nessie ignore, that according to him, these peoples are deniers and not revisionists, and I my quotes prove I asked for revisionists, this is my last response about this absurd theme since Nessie don´t look like someone who is able to admit fault.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p271863" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nessie wrote:That you say you would need more evidence to say they are anti-semitic, pro-Nazi Holocaust deniers shows that if something does not suit your argument you dismiss and or dodge it.
Nessie wrote:Bobs position on this image

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.co ... denial.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is "I actually need more than one photo to judge peoples Nessie."

Indeed, despit all efforts to get an opinion he dodges the clear evidence shown by that image. Why are you unable to tacle the issues raised by that image?


Don´t know what is strange about to say that I need more information about these peoples on the picture to be able to judge them, i need to know who are they, why they say what they say, why they have these signs, what are they arguments, what is their message, what they really wanted to show with their gestures if everything is as it looks and etc. I am not so primitive to judge peoples only thanks to one photograph.

You presented the same primitive rubbish acceptable only be primitives as tabloid Sun here
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 ... n203ok.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to you, he is Nazi and so on, but for me just one single photo is totally worthless, deal with it.
Nessie wrote:Are you trying to claim the examples of revisionists being anti-semitic etc fail because you say they are not revisionists and are in fact deniers? Or are you saying what they have said is not anti-semitic etc?


This is really insane discussion, I did not say this of course, but you did, another invented Bob´s quote from you, see here:

Bob - Nessie separated them, hm, is Nessie able to tell me what is difference between denier and revisionist?

Nessie - 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.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p271620" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nessie wrote:I will not answer your question about destruction of evidence here, especially since you have still failed to respond to my rebuttal of your made up quote and clear indication from the time you made it that it was wrong. I have answered it in another thread so you cannot use your tactic of deflection here.
Nessie can´t or don´t want, ok, my quote is thus still valid, no invention.

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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:35 pm

Here is where I found names of revisonists, who I then went and found anti-semitic quotes by

http://www.revisionists.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that David Irvine and Mark Webber are there as is Ernst Zundell who has said

"Wherever we look, we White people find ourselves besieged by peoples of other races who compete aggressively against us for jobs, food, housing, education and above all, power! The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers."

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... nst-zundel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and here in on You Tube

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

where he predicts a civil war in the US caused by the Jews.

Your argument is based on trying to claim revisionists are not revisionists because ytou say they are not. But they say that they are as do other revisionists. That is good enough for me that they are revisionists.
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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:50 pm

Nessie wrote:Here is where I found names of revisonists, who I then went and found anti-semitic quotes by

http://www.revisionists.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that David Irvine and Mark Webber are there as is Ernst Zundell who has said

"Wherever we look, we White people find ourselves besieged by peoples of other races who compete aggressively against us for jobs, food, housing, education and above all, power! The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers."

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... nst-zundel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and here in on You Tube

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

where he predicts a civil war in the US caused by the Jews.

Your argument is based on trying to claim revisionists are not revisionists because ytou say they are not. But they say that they are as do other revisionists. That is good enough for me that they are revisionists.
Nessie just ignore, that according to his definition, they are not revisionists, and his own claim refute his examples of revisionists, in other words he simply show exmaples in which he himself could not believe because of his definition.

Despite this I don´t see any quote in his comment which are "anti-semitic", he must prove that they make these quotes because of Jew nationality or religion, best luck Nessie. It looks like that Nessie consider as antisemitic every critique or negative comment about Jews no matter for what reason that alleged "antisemite" criticised the Jews. As I said, simply primitive.

Nessie dodged my point in his usual way, nevermind.

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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:52 pm

Jurgen Graf, who is also listed as a revisionist states here

http://juergen-graf.vho.org/articles/ho ... onism.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Having ascertained that the Jewish extermination and homicidal gas chamber story is but a monstrous hoax, I understood the true nature of the so-called "Western democracy", and I became aware of the fact that a hostile alien minority is the driving force behind the decadence and corruption corroding Western society. The holocaust is but the most extreme case of the lies the Jewish-run media are continuously poisoning the world with. A very significant example is the vicious propaganda against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Jews and their stooges bitterly hate Iran because that country has dared to challenge the political, military and cultural imperialism of the world's only remaining superpower, the Zionist-led USA. It is of paramount importance to remember that the people who are constantly lying about "gas chambers" and "six million" are the same ones who relentlessly vilify Iran and the Islamic Revolution. They are, incidentally, the same people who propagate abortion, gay rights (including the right of homosexuals to marry a partner of their own sex and the right of homosexual couples to adopt children), hard-core pornography, and similar abominations."

"Nowadays, a large percentage of the Jews do not believe in God any more, but virtually all of them believe in the Six Million. The Zionist leadership cunningly exploits the holocaust to unite the World's Jews by keeping them in a constant state of hysteria and persecution mania, insinuating that only if the Jews stick together will they be able to ban the threat of a new holocaust."

"Fortunately the internet, which the Jews are unable to censure, has greatly improved our possibilities to make the results of our research known to the World, but all the same, we should not cherish naive illusions: Not every citizen of the Western world who is informed about the revisionist arguments will automatically become revisionist and anti-Zionist."
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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:00 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Here is where I found names of revisonists, who I then went and found anti-semitic quotes by

http://www.revisionists.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that David Irvine and Mark Webber are there as is Ernst Zundell who has said

"Wherever we look, we White people find ourselves besieged by peoples of other races who compete aggressively against us for jobs, food, housing, education and above all, power! The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers."

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... nst-zundel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and here in on You Tube

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

where he predicts a civil war in the US caused by the Jews.

Your argument is based on trying to claim revisionists are not revisionists because ytou say they are not. But they say that they are as do other revisionists. That is good enough for me that they are revisionists.
Nessie just ignore, that according to his definition, they are not revisionists, and his own claim refute his examples of revisionists, in other words he simply show exmaples in which he himself could not believe because of his definition.

Despite this I don´t see any quote in his comment which are "anti-semitic", he must prove that they make these quotes because of Jew nationality or religion, best luck Nessie. It looks like that Nessie consider as antisemitic every critique or negative comment about Jews no matter for what reason that alleged "antisemite" criticised the Jews. As I said, simply primitive.

Nessie dodged my point in his usual way, nevermind.
The important part is that they call themselves revisionist and are regarded by other revisionists as revisionist. It does not matter that you think my basic definition of revisionism and denier does not fit in your opinion.

If you think that accusations of the Jews running or at least having undue influence over the likes of the media and the USA, so potentially causing wars and hoodwinking the western world over the Holocaust to get money is anti-semitic, you seriously do not know what anti-semitism is. Just like you are unsure about what an image of KKK, Nazi saluting, Holocaust denying is. There is a big difference between that and dressing up with a Swastika as Prince Harry did at a private party which he then apologised for.
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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:31 pm

Nessie wrote:Jurgen Graf, who is also listed as a revisionist states here

http://juergen-graf.vho.org/articles/ho ... onism.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Having ascertained that the Jewish extermination and homicidal gas chamber story is but a monstrous hoax"
According to Nessie´s definition here: "Denial claims no Holocaust happened at all." this man is not revisionist, but denier and Nessie is refuted with his own claim, you just don´t bother about your self-contradictions, do you?

Is also interesting to see that Nessie ignore message of Jurgen Graf and why he says what he says, he just don´t care about arugments, when somebody say something negative in connection with Jews, you are an "antisemite." this is in perfect accordance with Nessies approach that "package" in important and not message.
Nessie wrote:The important part is that they call themselves revisionist and are regarded by other revisionists as revisionist. It does not matter that you think my basic definition of revisionism and denier does not fit in your opinion.
The only important part is, that you present me something what is not true according to you, very ridiculous.
Nessie wrote:If you think that accusations of the Jews running or at least having undue influence over the likes of the media and the USA, so potentially causing wars and hoodwinking the western world over the Holocaust to get money is anti-semitic, you seriously do not know what anti-semitism is. Just like you are unsure about what an image of KKK, Nazi saluting, Holocaust denying is. There is a big difference between that and dressing up with a Swastika as Prince Harry did at a private party which he then apologised for.
What you think about what I think is irrelevant, I need to know why somebody make these statements to decide if these statements have something to do with hostility against Jews because of their nationality or religion, I repeat, I am not so primitive to judge peoples so fast as "somebody".

Nessie uses double standard , typical.
you seriously do not know what anti-semitism is
Yep, you know it better as you undoubtely proved.

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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:43 pm

If you insist that none of the linked people I have shown you are revisionists and all are deniers, then please give me your defintion of denial and revisionism.

You are again misrepresenting my position about message and messenger. I have clearly stated that either or both can be more important, it depends on context. So it is not true for you to say "that "package" in important and not message.". For example Bradley Smith puts forward a very strong message about the Holocaust and the package is not an issue. But the KKK members with their placards of the Holocaust is a hoax, the message is lost in the package as people see the uniform and Nazi salutes.

I differ from you in that if someone makes a statement than can be seen as prejudiced or hostile or whatever, I say that is what it is and at that time the person has been prejudiced, hostile etc. Why they have said it is a separate issue that is linked, but it would never negate the fact that they said it. Are you trying to suggest that it is OK to be prejudiced, hostile etc in the context of the debate about the Holocaust?

I do wonder if you really understand the basic dictionary definition of anti-semitism since you have a made up alternative version.
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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:18 pm

Nessie wrote:If you insist that none of the linked people I have shown you are revisionists and all are deniers, then please give me your defintion of denial and revisionism.
Another invention, you are the one who claim that they are deniers according to your definition. My last response about this, your comments are repetitive.

I dont care about definition since I do not sort peoples to groups like you do, so I cant answer.
Nessie wrote:You are again misrepresenting my position about message and messenger. I have clearly stated that either or both can be more important, it depends on context. So it is not true for you to say "that "package" in important and not message.". For example Bradley Smith puts forward a very strong message about the Holocaust and the package is not an issue. But the KKK members with their placards of the Holocaust is a hoax, the message is lost in the package as people see the uniform and Nazi salutes.
Ok, you confirmed it, "package."
Nessie wrote:I differ from you in that if someone makes a statement than can be seen as prejudiced or hostile or whatever, I say that is what it is and at that time the person has been prejudiced, hostile etc. Why they have said it is a separate issue that is linked, but it would never negate the fact that they said it.

I do wonder if you really understand the basic dictionary definition of anti-semitism since you have a made up alternative version.
My last response about this, there are lot of semitic group of peoples as sourced before. According to you, anti-semitism = hostility and etc. against Jews = false since all other semitic peoples are excluded and discriminated and for some strange reason, only Jews are chosen, term is false, has nothing to do with semitism and who uses it is off. I laready challenged you to prove me wrong long time ago, you refused.

Nessie still wonder, and I do not wonder about his "wonder"
Nessie wrote:Are you trying to suggest that it is OK to be prejudiced, hostile etc in the context of the debate about the Holocaust?
I wonder where did you find this, but in fact, as proved by your quotes, your are prejudiced a you are ok with it.

You still did not explain who destroyed evidence.

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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:38 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:If you insist that none of the linked people I have shown you are revisionists and all are deniers, then please give me your defintion of denial and revisionism.
Another invention, you are the one who claim that they are deniers according to your definition. My last response about this, your comments are repetitive.

You are trying to weasel your way out of dealing with this issue by applying my apparently faulty definition of denier. They say they are revisionists, which I would take as a more accurate description of their position than my very basic definition. But you cannot accept that as it proves you wrong. Some revisionist are anti-semitic.

I dont care about definition since I do not sort peoples to groups like you do, so I cant answer.

OK so if you don't care why bother so much about my definition?

Nessie wrote:You are again misrepresenting my position about message and messenger. I have clearly stated that either or both can be more important, it depends on context. So it is not true for you to say "that "package" in important and not message.". For example Bradley Smith puts forward a very strong message about the Holocaust and the package is not an issue. But the KKK members with their placards of the Holocaust is a hoax, the message is lost in the package as people see the uniform and Nazi salutes.
Ok, you confirmed it, "package."

Confirmed package as what? That response makes no sense.

Nessie wrote:I differ from you in that if someone makes a statement than can be seen as prejudiced or hostile or whatever, I say that is what it is and at that time the person has been prejudiced, hostile etc. Why they have said it is a separate issue that is linked, but it would never negate the fact that they said it.

I do wonder if you really understand the basic dictionary definition of anti-semitism since you have a made up alternative version.
My last response about this, there are lot of semitic group of peoples as sourced before. According to you, anti-semitism = hostility and etc. against Jews = false since all other semitic peoples are excluded and discriminated and for some strange reason, only Jews are chosen, term is false, has nothing to do with semitism and who uses it is off. I laready challenged you to prove me wrong long time ago, you refused.

Nessie still wonder, and I do not wonder about his "wonder"

None of that matters as the clear defintion of anti-semitic refers to Jewish people.
Nessie wrote:Are you trying to suggest that it is OK to be prejudiced, hostile etc in the context of the debate about the Holocaust?
I wonder where did you find this, but in fact, as proved by your quotes, your are prejudiced a you are ok with it.

That conclusion has no basis in fact.

You still did not explain who destroyed evidence.

OK, so you ignore the answer elsewhere, so the Nazis destroyed evidence when the Action Reinhard camps were destroyed. If you want to discuss that further, please pick a relevant thread or start a new one.

Now please deal with the issue you have been dodging by not responding with an answer here or indeed anywhere else. Do you accept that (from post #108 on the other thread)

"I have never claimed that te absence of phyisical evidence prove crime". That is not true and it is wrong of you to put that into quotes and attribute it to me."

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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:20 pm

Nessie wrote:OK so if you don't care why bother so much about my definition?
I already answered, that I only enjoyed expose of your fallacies.
Nessie wrote:OK, so you ignore the answer elsewhere, so the Nazis destroyed evidence when the Action Reinhard camps were destroyed. If you want to discuss that further, please pick a relevant thread or start a new one.
I did not ignore it, i didn´t see it, I challenged you to quote it, but you refused.

Ok, so here it is, you only confirmed that i did not invent it and i was right, you clearly said in your quote, that absence of evidence prove crime, because according to you this missing evidence of crime had been destroyed by criminals themselves. Thanks finally for your confirmation.

I know that you are not going to apologize for your accusation, but nevermind.

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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:33 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:OK so if you don't care why bother so much about my definition?
I already answered, that I only enjoyed expose of your fallacies.
Nessie wrote:OK, so you ignore the answer elsewhere, so the Nazis destroyed evidence when the Action Reinhard camps were destroyed. If you want to discuss that further, please pick a relevant thread or start a new one.
I did not ignore it, i didn´t see it, I challenged you to quote it, but you refused.

Ok, so here it is, you only confirmed that i did not invent it and i was right, you clearly said in your quote, that absence of evidence prove crime, because according to you this missing evidence of crime had been destroyed by criminals themselves. Thanks finally for your confirmation.

I know that you are not going to apologize for your accusation, but nevermind.
Er, what quote, the one you made up?

I first mentioned the destruction of evidence in post #106 of the Krema II thread

"There are many cases where courts rely totally on witnesses. There may be no physical evidence or it has been destroyed. You cannot dismiss witness evidence because there is no physical evidence. If you dont understand that I cannot help you."

Your response was in post #107

"I know one big case, Holocaust. Nessie ignore that we have physical evidence in many places. Nessie also made next interesting claim "absence of physical evidence prove crime" since absence of evidence prove that evidence was destroyed according to Nessie. Nessie ignore that is completely ok to dismiss witness evidence which is contradicted by physical evidence or documents or science."

which includes a made up quote and an incorrect conclusion of what I really did say. I have not ignored physical evidence, I have also not ignored eyewitness evidence. If they contradict I look at why that is and what reasons there may be for that. You don't bother and just dismiss the eyewitness as a lair. If there is a lack of physical evidence it there are various reasons for that. There is none or it has been destroyed or it has not yet been found. In no way does that mean having no physical evidence can prove a crime. That is utter nonsense. Your made up quote was rebutted in post #108

"I have never claimed that te absence of phyisical evidence prove crime". That is not true and it is wrong of you to put that into quotes and attribute it to me. There is evidence of the destruction of camps such as Treblinka II and Belzec. Just look at the remains now. It is not necessarily OK to dismiss witness evidence that is contradicted by physical evidence. To do that you have to assume in all cases physical evidence is clear, not open to interpretation and is as it appears. That is wrong, it needs checking and corroborating and what you should ask is why does the evidnece conflict? You are misrepresenting what I have said."

You are now saying "you clearly said in your quote, that absence of evidence prove crime, because according to you this missing evidence of crime had been destroyed by criminals themselves."

But no where can you you show where I have said the abscence of evidence proves a crime. I also did not mention who destroyed the evidence at that time. You are just adding to what you have already made up.

But since it was the Nazis, I have said before that if they had such benevolent intentions with the camps as you suggest, why not leave them in place? I have said before that since the Nazis saw what happened with the remains found at Katyn they had a reason to destroy camps where they were also massacring people. I have said before the destruction of camps leaves the Nazis with a smoking gun to deal with. That is all only evidence towards the conclusion that the Nazis were using the Action Reinhard camps for mass destruction of people. But in no way is the destruction of the camps and so the abscence of physical evidence (which is not the case anyway, there are still archeological remains at the camps of buildings and human remains) proof of a crime.

You did the same thing when you accused me of saying missing people is evidence or proof of a crime. A missing person in itself is not proof of a crime. A missing person can be used as evidence of a crime where there is also evidence they have been murdered. Indeed a trial has started today in Scotland where the victim has never been found, but the accused is standing trial for murder. That the victim is missing will be used as evidence the accused killed them.

DO YOU ACCEPT THAT YOU MADE UP THIS QUOTE "absence of physical evidence prove crime"


DO YOU ACCEPT THAT I DO NOT THINK THAT THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PROVES A CRIME?

I also think that your insistance on continuing on that point is a deflection by you to avoid dealing with revisionism, denial and anti-semitism. Or else why do you not deal with that issue and instead you say you enjoy exposing my supposed fallicies. If you will not/cannot make your position clear that is the ultimate dodge and it is no wonder I may have not been able to follow what you are going on about and what your point is.
Last edited by Nessie on Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:38 pm

Your effort has no value, you can´t ignore your quote about detroying evidence, you can only admit mistake, that´s all.

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 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:41 pm

Bob wrote:Your effort has no value, you can´t ignore your quote about detroying evidence, you can only admit mistake, that´s all.
It is not my quote, it is your made up quote. I never said it. The mistake is yours.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.