What is it that deniers deny?

Discussions
User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Balsamo » Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:00 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:David,

I read a book a long time ago on the stance to defend a type of "historical revisionism" to which the philosopher was arguing that history should be "reconstructed" based upon our present capacity to interpret evidence AND our present-day experiences. It seems reasonable for certain interpretations because it acts locally to respect what we subjectively experience in simplest terms that can be applied to the past. For instance, since we experience gravity in our present lives as being uniform and sufficiently agreed to objectively (collective subjective concordance), then we can, say, reconstruct some history about an event described in contradiction to this, such as flying angels, to rationalize the actual intention of the recorded history referencing them.

Another example that I like to use is the reference in the first passages of the Bible that state the initial conditions of the world:


"Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Here, the default assumption was that water pre-existed everything on the assumptions back then that favored the idea that water was "chaotic" as in being fluid and not understood. It also seemed to provide life without their understanding of present science and would also likely be hinted at based on word-of-mouth stories of findings of fossilized fish in higher grounds.

Also, the "Spirit of God" could have been a transition through time that actually referred to the atmosphere or air itself. They did not make sense of how air itself could seem to exist yet evade sight as an entity and so from our present understanding, we might interpret the original intentional description in light of what we know today. Thus "Spirit of God" in our day represents the real gases of air, and is a 'good' thing since it also provides life. So this would translate as, "Good air" or "Breathable Air" (as opposed to similar spirits, like toxic smoke).

So my question to you, or others who may know better, does the "Revisionist" referred to here derive from the same idea of "historical reconstruction" as to what I've described?
WTF are you talking about?
How do you define Revisionism? I gave the definition with example of a possibly similar term I've read called, "historical reconstructionism". It may also be referred to some as simple "historical constructionism" when no previous records are certain. What's so difficult to understand? Does the way you guys use your term fit the same meaning as the one I brought up?
It all depends, if you ask me about revisionism, my answer would be two pages long,
If you ask me about its internet incarnation, the answer would be much much shorter. Pay you a visit to codoh or even rodoh, as this poor Nessie is all alone by now, and you'll find interesting information about what today's denielism is about.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:14 pm

the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe" was represented by the prosecution as part of long-term plan on the part of the Nazi leadership going back to the foundations of the Nazi Party in 1919. Subsequently, most historians subscribed to what would be today considered to be the extreme intentionalist interpretation."
The "final solution" was a term used widely for many years. It absolutely was a goal as early as 1919. The nature of said final solution changed (Lublin, Madagascar, USSR, SLON,) and killing was only decided upon in May 1942.

Do you even read history david?

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:21 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote: Why do you even bother trying to explain it to them? They've been told what it is that "deniers" "deny" and they are pretending they don't get it or they really are too stupid to understand the difference between 'it didn't happen' and 'some of it didn't happen'.
Mary, Mary quite contrary, trim that pussy, so damn hairy.

There is nothing that you do not deny. You deny the exterminations in the AR camps, which is admitted to by Irving, Weber, and Cole. You deny any exterminatory intention by the Germans at all.

You attept (and fail) to dismiss the the work of thousands of hard working researchers over seven decades with a hand wave and childish fantasies about "ewiw joos" You dodge the evidence that butchers your fantasies, such as the "Meldung 51" report, the testimony of Jakob Sporrenburg, and the documents mentioned in my HC thread.

I have been acquainted with your spewing for several months now, and you have yet to make a single serious point. Go check our Wannasee thread to see what serious points and deep, rational discussion of evidence looks like.

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:53 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
David wrote:
Nessie wrote:Denier/revisionists want to live in a place where there are no Jews and a world where there is no Jewish influence. The Nazis had a go at doing that and so they are attracted to Nazism. They deny the Nazis went about creating that place by means of a genocide because they cannot face their idols being so cruel and to try and attract others to their cause. They are trying to get the Holocaust revised so that Jews and Israel cannot use it to get compensation and sympathy.

I do not believe their claim that they are trying to right a wrong and correct history to show the truth because that in itself is the right thing to do.
Gawd, what a pack of drivel, not just Nessie but all the Believer posts.
"Denier" is a Believer-made-up word meant as a slur and a diversion. I couldn't give a rat's ass about it being a slur
but it is inaccurate.
Revisionist is an accurate term, just as Believer is an accurate term.

Flash back to 1946 Nuremberg- The prosecution presented a story, the Tribunal accepted the story.
For years teachers, writers, politicians all accepted the Story. I accepted the Story.
Then people started to notice things did not make sense in parts of the Story.
They did a little research and revised parts of the Story. The Story was "Intentionalist. Now it is pretty
much Functionalist.
Every Believer in this thread probably Believes in a revised Story....all you Intentionalists go sit over with
Lucy Dawidowicz.

I still believe parts of the Story but I believe that large parts should be revised.
The parts that should be revised are the parts were evidence requires that they be revised.

The conflict between those the Believe and those that would Revise comes because there is conflicting evidence.
Believers rely on "eye witnessing," and confessions. Revisionist rely on science, an physical evidence.

Believers desperately try to find real physical evidence (20,000 bodies in a pit) This shows
in Sturdy-Colls absurd claim to have found a "Star of David" tile at Treblinka.

To address other of Nessie's points-
1. Yes some Revisionists are anti-Jewish but some are Jewish, like David Cole
2. I do not know a single Revisionist who thinks that the National Socialists did not practice
extremely anti-Semitic measures including throwing huge numbers of women and children into
camps, where lots of people died.
Why do you even bother trying to explain it to them? They've been told what it is that "deniers" "deny" and they are pretending they don't get it or they really are too stupid to understand the difference between 'it didn't happen' and 'some of it didn't happen'.
Hello MQC- First, hope springs eternal that some Believers in the Ugly Myth will realize how sick, twisted, and
impossible parts of their sacred Story is....I have faith in human rationality.
Secondly, Believer propagandists twist and distort what Revisionists say or what Revisionism is.
It is worth repeating that Revisionism is just a review of the admittedly incorrect and exaggerated claims
presented at the Nuremberg Show Trial. Best.

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:57 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Maryzilla returned to the subforum to share that - two "WTFs" and one "why bother"? LOL
Mary returned to the UFO thread a couple days before he started posting in here again. He was away for a month. I assume he joined another forum and either got thrown off or laughed off, and thus he has returned here.

David and Mary should simply exchange phone numbers and ring each other up to discuss "What's new with the Adolf Hitler fan club". Us normal humans don't need to read about this any more.
:D

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:01 am

David the holocaust denier to Mary, the other holocaust denier, wrote:Hello MQC- First, hope springs eternal that some Believers in the Ugly Myth will realize how sick, twisted, and impossible parts of their sacred Story is....Best.
David David David, You poor senile old man. Mary is now a full on believer in aliens in the UFO thread. He states there, that he is no longer a holocaust denier.

Would you like to read Mary saying that?

:D

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9950
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Pyrrho » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:11 am

Jeff, please keep your comments above the belt.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:30 am

David wrote:It is worth repeating that Revisionism is just a review of the admittedly incorrect and exaggerated claims
presented at the Nuremberg Show Trial. Best.
This must explain Weckert's paper on Kristallnacht, Haverbeck's falsehoods about the KLs, and FP Berg's review of Nuremberg that reads: "The Nazis are the great heroes of modern history who with their extraordinary bravery and military skill saved the world."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:31 am

"The Nazis are the great heroes of modern history who with their extraordinary bravery and military skill saved the world."
from what exactly? the "ewiw joos?" stupid old man.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:36 am

. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:28 am

Of course, you hate them because they saw through creatures like you. They put creatures like you, Nessie, in concentration camps--and rightly so.
Slime. Pure slime.

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:31 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:It is worth repeating that Revisionism is just a review of the admittedly incorrect and exaggerated claims
presented at the Nuremberg Show Trial. Best.
This must explain Weckert's paper on Kristallnacht, Haverbeck's falsehoods about the KLs, and FP Berg's review of Nuremberg that reads: "The Nazis are the great heroes of modern history who with their extraordinary bravery and military skill saved the world."
Hello SM-
For a Believer who squirms like a slug on a bed of salt every time I point out that Steam Chambers were
part of the Holocaust Story, you seem obtuse to a simple fact about humans:
Some times they get things right and some times they get things wrong.


Newton spent years trying to convert base metals into gold. Following your Sneering Moron view of things,
you would have trashed Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Linus Pauling proposed a goofed up structure of DNA...you are stupid enough to think he should not have
won the Nobel Prize TWICE?

The simple fact is that No one is right all the time.
It is what they get right that leads to revisions of ideas and progress.

Why don't you try some other nasty clown reason to ignore science, SM?

Fritz Berg is right that unloaded diesel exhaust cannot kill people by CO poisoning.
Fritz Berg is right that people killed by CO poison are flushed pink at death and quickly develop
cherry red lividity.
Fritz Berg is right with his technical analysis of the use of Zyclon.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:38 am

Fritz Berg is right that unloaded diesel exhaust cannot kill people by CO poisoning.
Fritz Berg is right that people killed by CO poison are flushed pink at death and quickly develop
cherry red lividity.
Fritz Berg is right with his technical analysis of the use of Zyclon.
1. No diesel engines at all were used. And even then, the soot and dust would likely cause suffocation eventually.

2. red discolouring takes eight to ten hours to develop, at which point they were already buried. Suffocation would have been tha cause of death in many as well.

3. Berg won a Stundie (an award given by smart people to stupid people basically) for his hilariously bad analysis of cyclon-B. The entire JREF forum basically erupted with laughter. I stopped taking him seriously after his senile misinterpretation of the Holfe telegram. He's even dumber than you, which is not easily accomplished.

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:07 am

David,the lying holocaust denier wrote:Fritz Berg is right that unloaded diesel exhaust cannot kill people by CO poisoning.
David is about to reboot again and start all his debunked claims from the beginning again.

With a bit of luck David may just remember to look at the evidence again and remember that asphyxiation was the contributing factor for deaths in gas chambers.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... on#p414799

With a bit of luck he will mesmerise us with his personal out of body trip to Treblinka II, and the exacting measurements he took, that have nothing to do with reality.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... ur#p439588

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:33 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
Of course, you hate them because they saw through creatures like you. They put creatures like you, Nessie, in concentration camps--and rightly so.
Slime. Pure slime.
But as Maryzilla and David are telling us, denial is just about tidying up the mistakes at Nuremberg . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:41 am

David, were these questions also too hard for you - "What 'parts of the story' do you jokers 'still believe' - what is the part 'of it' that 'didn't happen,' and what is the part that did?'
David wrote:For a Believer who squirms like a slug on a bed of salt every time I point out that Steam Chambers were
part of the Holocaust Story, you seem obtuse to a simple fact about humans:
Some times they get things right and some times they get things wrong.
Hunh? Why did you abandon the most recent thread on this topic? Oh, that's right, I forgot, you ran away.

As you know, I am well aware of the rumors and news about the death camps spreading in Poland and beyond in 1942. And you know that I'm equally well aware of how what circulated at the time was used later. In fact, I had to explain all this to you as you fumbled about trying to comprehend what was going on.

What you forget, on purpose, is that gas chambers were also part of the early news about the death camps . . . and what you never tell us is, so what? Because, er, sometimes people get it wrong, and sometimes they get it right.
David wrote:Newton spent years trying to convert base metals into gold. Following your Sneering Moron view of things,
you would have trashed Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Linus Pauling proposed a goofed up structure of DNA...you are stupid enough to think he should not have
won the Nobel Prize TWICE?

The simple fact is that No one is right all the time.
It is what they get right that leads to revisions of ideas and progress.

Why don't you try some other nasty clown reason to ignore science, SM?
David, two very simple questions, did you ever study history? And do you know who James McPherson is?
David wrote:Fritz Berg is right that unloaded diesel exhaust cannot kill people by CO poisoning.
He's unwilling to prove this using himself as guinea pig . . . but what does it matter, since gasoline engines were used in the murder chambers. Remember, we've agreed that "Some times [people] get things right and some times they get things wrong."
David wrote:Fritz Berg is right that people killed by CO poison are flushed pink at death and quickly develop
cherry red lividity.
Why did you abandon the thread in which this topic was being discussed? Go back to it and explain to us the physical condition of victims and its medical effects, the role of asphyxiation, the evidence you're using on corpse coloration, etc. While you're at it, answer all the questions and challenges you fled from. Here's the link for where to start, to make this easier for you; be sure to answer all Nessie's points.
David wrote:Fritz Berg is right with his technical analysis of the use of Zyclon.
Is he right that people exposed to Zyklon B can survive by holding their breaths for 20 minutes or so?

And, exactly what part of "revisionism" is Theo H's problem with Jews, FB Berg's touting of KLs for Nessie and the achievements of the Third Reich, Weckert's theory about Kristallnacht, and Haverbeck's prettying up of KLs? I could go on . . .

David, this thread isn't for you to repeat nonsense from threads you've fled because you couldn't keep up with the discussion. It is to give your a chance to clarify for us, given some of the dissonance, what revisionism really is. Try again.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:24 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:David, were these questions also too hard for you - "What 'parts of the story' do you jokers 'still believe' - what is the part 'of it' that 'didn't happen,' and what is the part that did?' It is to give your a chance to clarify for us, given some of the dissonance, what revisionism really is.[/dropshadow][/dropshadow] Try again.
SM, Maybe you should read your own question..."What Revisionism really is?"
Then you have confused yourself by demanding specific examples.

In fact, I have tried to cut through all the dishonest Believer straw men and explain exactly what Revisionism is...
a review of the "Story" we are told taking the Tribunal at Nuremberg as the clearest iteration of the official Story, a questioning of parts of the Story that do not make sense, a weighing of the evidence, and a revision of the Story. Simple.
Revisionism is a rational process of reviewing things that we are told.

I gave you a series of examples but I will reiterate and expand.

1. The Story that Hitler gave a secret Order to "kill all Jews" in June 1941 was been revised or abandoned by all but
the most fanatical (or stupid) of Believers. Thank you David Irving although Christopher Browning has followed up on Irving's work.
2. The Story that 1,400,000 people were murdered at Majdanek has been abandoned. Thank you Tomas Kranz, Jurgen Graff,
and Carlo Mattogno
3. The Story that there were "Steam Chambers of Death" used to kill millions at "Temblinka" abandoned Thank you Common Sense
4. The Story that people were killed by unloaded diesel exhaust. abandoned by all but the most stupid of Believers Thank you Fritz Berg
5. The Story that there was a Human Soap Factory at Auschwitz. abandoned by even the most Stupid of Believers Thank you Common sense.
6. The Story that there were 6 "gas chambers" at Majdanek. abandoned by everyone with any brains but the Story that there was
one "wrongway" gas chamber is still clung to by a few desperate Believers. Thank you Eric Hunt.
7. The Story that 4,000,000 people were killed at Auschwitz
8. The Story that 2,500,000 people were killed at Auschwitz
9. The Story that 100,000 people were killed inside Krema I at Auschwitz.

Of course, with revisions to history a dialectic is created. Believers frantically try to "patch up" their Story.

Take the claims of Steam Chambers at Treblinka....first presented in 1942 and confirmed as an "official" Story at Nuremberg in 1946.

It soon became obvious that "Steam Chambers" were just an absurd propaganda story.
So the Believers came on the idea of Diesel exhaust from unloaded engines from a Soviet tank, or submarine, or something.
Turns out that that unloaded diesel exhaust would not kill people. (Thank you Fritz Berg)
So the Believers are scrambling to make a limited revision to their Story.
Make up a valid "gas" to kill people and Just ignore the "eye witnesses" who saw diesels, as I cynically describe it.

Now Some Believers are claiming that the engines were "REALLY" gasoline engines.
Alan Dersowitz asserted (regarding the Lynch Trial of John Demjanjuk) that, not only was Demjanjuk guilty, but it was
cyanide gas that REALLY killed people at Treblinka.

This process of limited response to Revisionist discoveries has even been described by a Believer
Every advance in research that adds a new complication to our understanding of what happened on the Nazi side, or on the victims’, can potentially threaten our moral clarity about why it happened, obscuring the reality and fundamental inexplicability of anti-Semitic eliminationism.”

Mark Lilla’s article in the New York Review of Books on why Believers should ignore Science, documentary evidence,and physical evidence
and hold fast to their Belief.

Revisionism is a series of small logical steps based on specific evidence compared to the evidence which supports the Story.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:57 pm

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:David, were these questions also too hard for you - "What 'parts of the story' do you jokers 'still believe' - what is the part 'of it' that 'didn't happen,' and what is the part that did?' It is to give your a chance to clarify for us, given some of the dissonance, what revisionism really is.[/dropshadow][/dropshadow] Try again.
SM, Maybe you should read your own question..."What Revisionism really is?"
Then you have confused yourself by demanding specific examples.
No, you guys confuse me, and others, by including specifics that don't fit your claimed definition.
David wrote:In fact, I have tried to cut through all the dishonest Believer straw men and explain exactly what Revisionism is...
a review of the "Story" we are told taking the Tribunal at Nuremberg as the clearest iteration of the official Story, a questioning of parts of the Story that do not make sense, a weighing of the evidence, and a revision of the Story. Simple.
Revisionism is a rational process of reviewing things that we are told.
Oh, I get it, revisionism is about 70 years out of date. David, one reason I asked if you ever studied history is that, had you, you'd be aware that the normal work of revision of the way we understand the Third Reich and Holocaust has been ongoing for decades, without deniers.
David wrote:I gave you a series of examples but I will reiterate and expand.

1. The Story that Hitler gave a secret Order to "kill all Jews" in June 1941 was been revised or abandoned by all but
the most fanatical (or stupid) of Believers. Thank you David Irving although Christopher Browning has followed up on Irving's work.
2. The Story that 1,400,000 people were murdered at Majdanek has been abandoned. Thank you Tomas Kranz, Jurgen Graff,
and Carlo Mattogno
3. The Story that there were "Steam Chambers of Death" used to kill millions at "Temblinka" abandoned Thank you Common Sense
4. The Story that people were killed by unloaded diesel exhaust. abandoned by all but the most stupid of Believers Thank you Fritz Berg
5. The Story that there was a Human Soap Factory at Auschwitz. abandoned by even the most Stupid of Believers Thank you Common sense.
6. The Story that there were 6 "gas chambers" at Majdanek. abandoned by everyone with any brains but the Story that there was
one "wrongway" gas chamber is still clung to by a few desperate Believers. Thank you Eric Hunt.
7. The Story that 4,000,000 people were killed at Auschwitz
8. The Story that 2,500,000 people were killed at Auschwitz
9. The Story that 100,000 people were killed inside Krema I at Auschwitz.

Of course, with revisions to history a dialectic is created. Believers frantically try to "patch up" their Story.
We've been over most of your "story," so I will simply remind everyone of your method: you take a point in contention (e.g., Hilberg disputed the death toll at Majdanek as early as 1961, early news of gas chambers - not steam chambers - circulated), pretend it is some "official story," pretend that Nuremberg enshrined the official story, and then cite either competing views or denier BS to "refute" the non-existent official story. Inane.

Now, you bring up Majdanek, and I notice you've been too gutless to get yourself properly in the discussion in that thread. Poor Nessie, everything borrowed from Hunt has been exposed as a lie or just wrong. It's in that thread - not here. Yes, it is easy for anyone to ignore the evidence and discussion and post stupidities about a supposed wrong-way gas chamber - but real work would be helping Nessie out in the thread. Coward.
David wrote:Take the claims of Steam Chambers at Treblinka....first presented in 1942 and confirmed as an "official" Story at Nuremberg in 1946.
For the thousandth time, the Nuremberg judgment, which is not the official story, whatever you mean by that, did NOT embrace the charge made that murder at Treblinka was committed by steam chambers. What you keep calling an official version, no matter how many times you're corrected, was actually a charge made by the Poles - and not accepted, at least by the OFFICIAL record of the trial, the judgment.

If you really want to debate this more, return to one of your steam threads and let's go. This thread is for understanding what is denied by deniers.

Judging from your comments it comes down simply to this: reality.
David wrote:This process of limited response to Revisionist discoveries has even been described by a Believer
Every advance in research that adds a new complication to our understanding of what happened on the Nazi side, or on the victims’, can potentially threaten our moral clarity about why it happened, obscuring the reality and fundamental inexplicability of anti-Semitic eliminationism.”

Mark Lilla’s article in the New York Review of Books on why Believers should ignore Science, documentary evidence,and physical evidence
and hold fast to their Belief.
We've been through Liilla. And this thread isn't about your cherry-picking of a single quotation from a humanities prof but rather, what do deniers deny?
David wrote:Revisionism is a series of small lies based on ignorance of the evidence and manipulation of evidence to try to get people to ignore the evidence which supports the German genocide and other war crimes.
ftfy
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:59 pm

David is belching up past inanities. Should we all just ignore him? I am really tired of typing out the same replies over and over only to have him ignore what's been explained and simply revert to his past follies.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:08 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:. . . and killing was only decided upon in May 1942.
Ahem?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:11 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: David, two very simple questions, did you ever study history? And do you know who James McPherson is?
Yes and Yes


He's unwilling to prove this using himself as guinea pig . . . but what does it matter, since gasoline engines were used in the murder chambers. Remember, we've agreed that "Some times [people] get things right and some times they get things wrong."
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Why did you abandon the thread in which this topic was being discussed? Go back to it and explain to us the physical condition of victims and its medical effects, the role of asphyxiation, the evidence you're using on corpse coloration, etc. While you're at it, answer all the questions and challenges you fled from. Here's the link for where to start, to make this easier for you; be sure to answer all Nessie's points.
I did---you missed just missed it. cherry red lividity is visible in 90- 95% of CO poisoning deaths
David wrote:Fritz Berg is right with his technical analysis of the use of Zyclon.
Is he right that people exposed to Zyklon B can survive by holding their breaths for 20 minutes or so?
Have you stopped beating your wife? Rather than make dishonest comments you should learn what you can from Berg.
He has done a pretty good analysis of the properties of Zyklon B.
For example what is the evaporation rate of the cyanide from the diatomaceous earth at various temperatures?
For how long will the pellets omit cyanide? Was Pressac's calculation on cyanide concentration in the "gas chambers" correct, ie. if
so much Zyklon could have been thrown through the solid concrete roof what concentration of cyanide gas would have been produced.

Of course, the standard Believer Story that Zyklon B was thrown onto the floor through a window or a hole chipped in the roof is
ridiculous, given the characteristics of cyanide.



And, exactly what part of "revisionism" is Theo H's problem with Jews, FB Berg's touting of KLs for Nessie and the achievements of the Third Reich, Weckert's theory about Kristallnacht, and Haverbeck's prettying up of KLs? I could go on . . .
No part

David, this thread isn't for you to repeat nonsense from threads you've fled because you couldn't keep up with the discussion.
Please get it right, your discussion consists of trying to tap-dance around basic scientific facts.
Take the obvious point about the buildings, fences, rail tracks, garbage dumps, etc. that the Germans left at Treblinka
in 1944. All this evidence was destroyed by the Soviets and Poles. You are intellectually or morally incapable of making
the obvious "Revisionist" conclusion from the fact...the Soviets and Poles wanted to destroy evidence.

What is a normal person to make from Nessie's claim that the Poles destroyed the real ties and rails left by the Germans and replaced
them with "symbolic" ties because they were too stupid to realize that they were destroying evidence?


It is to give your a chance to clarify for us, given some of the dissonance, what revisionism really is. Try again.

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:16 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:. . . and killing was only decided upon in May 1942.
Ahem?
You Believers are all over the map on the key question of Intentionalist Belief.
And you make "not Believing" a felony!

Do you have the honesty to ask "Why are Believers all over the Map on when, if, or if not Hitler gave 'The Order' ?"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:57 pm

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: David, two very simple questions, did you ever study history? And do you know who James McPherson is?
Yes and Yes
Then why don't you know what revisionism means in historical study?

What level was your last history course - 8th grade?
David wrote:I did---you missed just missed it. cherry red lividity is visible in 90- 95% of CO poisoning deaths
Well, that is just one of the questions I asked you - and you must not have read the thread. You aren't answering questions about time, physical condition of the victim, etc and their relation to lividity. And you didn't answer what I asked you about your sources for corpse condition.

Hint: repeating a mantra that someone's refuted is not answering the challenges to your claims; it is simply mindless repetition.

So go back to the thread I linked, answer all the questions directed at you guys and at you specifically, and stop hiding like a coward here. Because this thread is to discuss what deniers deny.
David wrote:Have you stopped beating your wife? Rather than make dishonest comments you should learn what you can from Berg.
Dishonest? How so? He won a Stundie for this, David. But, David, this thread is for what deniers deny, not for you to try irrelevant quips out.
David wrote:He has done a pretty good analysis of the properties of Zyklon B.
For example what is the evaporation rate of the cyanide from the diatomaceous earth at various temperatures?
For how long will the pellets omit cyanide? Was Pressac's calculation on cyanide concentration in the "gas chambers" correct, ie. if
so much Zyklon could have been thrown through the solid concrete roof what concentration of cyanide gas would have been produced.
Same reply as above, return to a thread where we're discussing such stuff. This thread is for what deniers deny.
David wrote:No part
Finally. That wasn't so hard, was it? Now, tell us why revisionists write about such stuff so often - and include this kind of stuff in their "work."

And, help us out a little more, you keep bringing up trials held nearly 70 years ago - those trials covered a LOT of ground, and had a LOT of findings, most of them not related to the Holocaust. AND a LOT of historical research has happened since (you know, in the same vein as McPherson's famous piece on revisionism), so please lay out for us what exactly you deny. And what, as you alluded to, "parts of the story" you "believe." We aren't mind readers.

And we do spot cowardice and repetition . . .
David wrote:Please get it right, your discussion consists of trying to tap-dance around basic scientific facts.
Nope, I just don't want you diverting this discussion. And escaping the other threads where we discussed your supposed "science."
David wrote:Take the obvious point about the buildings, fences, rail tracks, garbage dumps, etc. that the Germans left at Treblinka
in 1944. All this evidence was destroyed by the Soviets and Poles. You are intellectually or morally incapable of making
the obvious "Revisionist" conclusion from the fact...the Soviets and Poles wanted to destroy evidence.
LOL you do struggle with basic logic and with the facts of history, don't you?
David wrote:What is a normal person to make from Nessie's claim that the Poles destroyed the real ties and rails left by the Germans and replaced them with "symbolic" ties because they were too stupid to realize that they were destroying evidence?
Take it to a Treblinka thread, link to it, and we can discuss it.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:01 pm

THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DAVID TO REPEAT HIS CLAIMS ABOUT SPECIFIC TOPICS - WITHOUT ANSWERING QUESTIONS HE'S BEEN ASKED ELSEWHERE - IT IS FOR DISCUSSION OF WHAT DENIERS DENY AND WHAT "REVISIONISTS" REVISE. Here is where we want to learn why so much of revisionist argument is not about gas/plan/six, as Trollo and Mary claim revisionism is, but rather about things like Germany's war aims, conditions in the KLs and ghettos, Hitler's admiration for the Poles, the positive aspects of National Socialism, Zionism, international Jewry, etc. The list goes on: medical experiments in the KLs, T-4, Generalplan Ost, the Kommissarbefehl, anti-partisan warfare . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:16 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: Then why don't you know what revisionism means in historical study?

What level was your last history course - 8th grade?
Please don't wig-out and slip into your old habits of slurs and insults, SM.
Let me help you with this...a simple quote regarding historical revisionism

"In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making
processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision
of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history."

Here is a more detailed description of IMPORTANCE of Revisionism-
The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. "

That is exactly what I have been explaining to you in the context of the Ugly Myth.
Get the part about "new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives."


Since Revisionism needs to start with something to revise, I started with the obvious formal and official Story
as presented at the Nuremberg Show Trial.

Of course, you missed the fact that the Nuremberg Show Trial was not just about the Holocaust so I will repeat.
The Soviets used the Trial as a platform for anti-Capitalist propaganda, to pass the blame for Katyn onto the Germans, and
to create the propaganda image that the Germans wanted to exterminate Slavs and Roma.
The British and the French wanted to pass the blame for starting the War onto the Germans, since they are the
ones who actually declared war on Germany!
Tha Americans and the British wanted to justify the huge costs in money and blood of the War and to "excuse" the
terror bombing and murder of hundreds of thousands of women and children.

However, the Tribunal exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes by exaggeration or by outright fakery.

David wrote:I did---you missed just missed it. cherry red lividity is visible in 90- 95% of CO poisoning deaths
Well, that is just one of the questions I asked you - and you must not have read the thread. You aren't answering questions about time, physical condition of the victim, etc and their relation to lividity. And you didn't answer what I asked you about your sources for corpse condition.

Hint: repeating a mantra that someone's refuted is not answering the challenges to your claims; it is simply mindless repetition.

So go back to the thread I linked, answer all the questions directed at you guys and at you specifically, and stop hiding like a coward here. Because this thread is to discuss what deniers deny.


Dishonest? How so? He won a Stundie for this, David. But, David, this thread is for what deniers deny, not for you to try irrelevant quips out.[/quote]

You have the cites. After awhile it gets tiring to repeat the same simple obvious scientific fact. I left Nessie confused
over the difference between being poisoned by CO but still being alive and being killed by CO. Hint- If you don't die that there will not be lividity.
Sooner or later, you and Nessie will read the science.

You are flipping around on what you are demanding that I answer...You do remember that you wrote,
"It is to give your a chance to clarify for us, given some of the dissonance, what revisionism really is. Try again."?

So I explained it...something to do with "new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives."

Since the concept seems beyond you allow me to repeat again-
Revisionism starts with new evidence or applying scientific perspectives to the old Story.
To walk you through an easy example-
The Revisionist fact is, "Exhaust from an unloaded diesel cannot kill people." Obviously there are conditions and provisos...if the
exhaust is 450 degrees it could slowly kill people.
Revisionist conclusion- People were not killed with exhaust from an unloaded diesel.

I keep repeating the Mantra- Revisionism is a step by step process. It is a reassessment of evidence.

NOW you are braying out a demand for "what Deniers deny."
I have politely shown you that "Denier" is an inaccurate slur designed to divert attention away from the actual Revisionist process.
I have politely given you a long list of Revisionist facts, most of which are generally accepted.

I have compared Revisionism with the reaction of Believers to the new evidence...ie. Every advance in research that adds a new complication to our understanding of what happened on the Nazi side, or on the victims’, can potentially threaten our moral clarity about why it happened, obscuring the reality and fundamental inexplicability of anti-Semitic eliminationism.”
Calls for more laws against discussion
Campaigns of smears and harassment.


[snip remain drivel]

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27994
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:21 pm

ty;dr
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:07 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DAVID TO REPEAT HIS CLAIMS ABOUT SPECIFIC TOPICS - WITHOUT ANSWERING QUESTIONS HE'S BEEN ASKED ELSEWHERE
I totally understand your frustration. David is spamming his propaganda mantras, without answering the existing questions in the threads that he previously spammed these same propaganda mantras. Our choices are:

1) Ignore him as a group

2) Agree to place him on ignore, as group, using forum member options, so he is invisible to all participants.

3) Applying to Pyrrho for a review, with the aim to have him suspended or banned for spamming propaganda.

4) Applying to Pyrrho, for ideas or methods, to isolate David to posts where he makes his mantras so he is forced to start backing up his propaganda.


Frankly, I think we should apply to get rid of David permanently. He is such an idiot he is scaring away real holocaust deniers, who may actually try to put up some arguments. You should make a suggestion to all participants to follow, as the most sensible and pragmatic person here.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:08 am

David wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
David wrote:
Nessie wrote:Denier/revisionists want to live in a place where there are no Jews and a world where there is no Jewish influence. The Nazis had a go at doing that and so they are attracted to Nazism. They deny the Nazis went about creating that place by means of a genocide because they cannot face their idols being so cruel and to try and attract others to their cause. They are trying to get the Holocaust revised so that Jews and Israel cannot use it to get compensation and sympathy.

I do not believe their claim that they are trying to right a wrong and correct history to show the truth because that in itself is the right thing to do.
Gawd, what a pack of drivel, not just Nessie but all the Believer posts.
"Denier" is a Believer-made-up word meant as a slur and a diversion. I couldn't give a rat's ass about it being a slur
but it is inaccurate.
Revisionist is an accurate term, just as Believer is an accurate term.

Flash back to 1946 Nuremberg- The prosecution presented a story, the Tribunal accepted the story.
For years teachers, writers, politicians all accepted the Story. I accepted the Story.
Then people started to notice things did not make sense in parts of the Story.
They did a little research and revised parts of the Story. The Story was "Intentionalist. Now it is pretty
much Functionalist.
Every Believer in this thread probably Believes in a revised Story....all you Intentionalists go sit over with
Lucy Dawidowicz.

I still believe parts of the Story but I believe that large parts should be revised.
The parts that should be revised are the parts were evidence requires that they be revised.

The conflict between those the Believe and those that would Revise comes because there is conflicting evidence.
Believers rely on "eye witnessing," and confessions. Revisionist rely on science, an physical evidence.

Believers desperately try to find real physical evidence (20,000 bodies in a pit) This shows
in Sturdy-Colls absurd claim to have found a "Star of David" tile at Treblinka.

To address other of Nessie's points-
1. Yes some Revisionists are anti-Jewish but some are Jewish, like David Cole
2. I do not know a single Revisionist who thinks that the National Socialists did not practice
extremely anti-Semitic measures including throwing huge numbers of women and children into
camps, where lots of people died.
Why do you even bother trying to explain it to them? They've been told what it is that "deniers" "deny" and they are pretending they don't get it or they really are too stupid to understand the difference between 'it didn't happen' and 'some of it didn't happen'.
Hello MQC- First, hope springs eternal that some Believers in the Ugly Myth will realize how sick, twisted, and
impossible parts of their sacred Story is....I have faith in human rationality.
Secondly, Believer propagandists twist and distort what Revisionists say or what Revisionism is.
It is worth repeating that Revisionism is just a review of the admittedly incorrect and exaggerated claims
presented at the Nuremberg Show Trial. Best.
You're right. I should make an attempt to answer their questions. If I had a feeling that there are a great many lurkers out there reading this discussion, I would. But I think it's the same ten people who can't understand the "deniers" obsession with gas chambers or who want to discuss how much somebody has to hate the Jews in order say that six million of them weren't exterminated. It gets tedious. These people have it stuck in their head that the Holocaust is one enormous event that is either affirmed or denied and that Holocaust revision=denial=anti-semitism.

Nothing you say will change their minds. Since nobody else is listening in, I prefer watching them waste their time trying to understand the mysterious complexity of revision.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:23 am

The Self Delusion
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote: You're right. I should make an attempt to answer their questions.
The Confessed Reality
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier, in the UFO thread, wrote:I do not read the Holocaust denial subforum; I troll the Holocaust denial subforum and if the spirit moves me I'll bless you all with a "drive by post"
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... st#p461780

Good one Mary.
:D

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:58 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:. . . and killing was only decided upon in May 1942.
Ahem?
I was simplifying it for his benefit. A full post of my timeline theories would likely cause him to have another stroke.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:01 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DAVID TO REPEAT HIS CLAIMS ABOUT SPECIFIC TOPICS - WITHOUT ANSWERING QUESTIONS HE'S BEEN ASKED ELSEWHERE
I totally understand your frustration. David is spamming his propaganda mantras, without answering the existing questions in the threads that he previously spammed these same propaganda mantras. Our choices are:

1) Ignore him as a group

2) Agree to place him on ignore, as group, using forum member options, so he is invisible to all participants.

3) Applying to Pyrrho for a review, with the aim to have him suspended or banned for spamming propaganda.

4) Applying to Pyrrho, for ideas or methods, to isolate David to posts where he makes his mantras so he is forced to start backing up his propaganda.


Frankly, I think we should apply to get rid of David permanently. He is such an idiot he is scaring away real holocaust deniers, who may actually try to put up some arguments. You should make a suggestion to all participants to follow, as the most sensible and pragmatic person here.
I find David hilarious, and an easy opponent, good for one's self confidence. I can't help but feel so smart when responding to him.
Last edited by Jeff_36 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:07 am

The Revisionist fact is, "Exhaust from an unloaded diesel cannot kill people."
AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

How many times must I say it: There were no diesel gas engines used in the Globocnik camps!

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:07 am

Jeff_36 wrote: I find David hilarious, and an easy opponent, good for one's self confidence. I can't help but feel so smart when responding to him.
Well in that case, let's keep him.

However I would still suggest locking him into one thread of something similar, to force David the denier, to answer questions. I don't know how this would be done and I would simply ask Pyrrho, the moderator, for his opinion and suggestions. (Pyrrho may not want to do this for ethical reasons. I don't know until we ask.)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:13 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Then why don't you know what revisionism means in historical study?

What level was your last history course - 8th grade?
Please don't wig-out and slip into your old habits of slurs and insults, SM.
Let me help you with this...a simple quote regarding historical revisionism
Yellow deleted. It is annoying.

For readers' benefit, I twice referred David to James McPherson - and he seems to have worked Google just fine to find McPherson's AHA statement on revisionism. And he now has the audacity to inform me that this is what he's been telling me - despite my sending him to McPherson! LOL
David wrote:Since Revisionism needs to start with something to revise, I started with the obvious formal and official Story
as presented at the Nuremberg Show Trial.
Ha! (a) It's not "obvious," since I am here to tell you that the scholars you reject don't start with that assumption. (b) The Nuremberg trial findings have been revised incessantly for 7 decades. (c) Scholars whom you reject have critiqued the trials themselves. (d) You've not told us, out of the vast amount of evidence and the findings, exactly what you agree with and what you disagree with.
David wrote:Of course, you missed the fact that the Nuremberg Show Trial was not just about the Holocaust so I will repeat.
The Soviets used the Trial as a platform for anti-Capitalist propaganda, to pass the blame for Katyn onto the Germans, and
to create the propaganda image that the Germans wanted to exterminate Slavs and Roma.
The British and the French wanted to pass the blame for starting the War onto the Germans, since they are the
ones who actually declared war on Germany!
Tha Americans and the British wanted to justify the huge costs in money and blood of the War and to "excuse" the
terror bombing and murder of hundreds of thousands of women and children.
You misunderstand my point, or you are proving it. Maryzilla wants to tell us - and she thinks it should be obvious - that revisionists revise six/gas/plan. I wondered how this could be so given all the other stuff revisionists go on about. And here you are going on about those other things. So, again, please, what is it you deny? Everything in the IMT findings? Is it that simple? Anything beyond that - like the findings of scholars presented over the last seventy years? Or just everything in the IMT?
David wrote:However, the Tribunal exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes by exaggeration or by outright fakery.
Ok, I hear you, you really don't like the Allies, you think I do, and you really like the Nazis. That is kind of what I was getting at.
David wrote:You have the cites. After awhile it gets tiring to repeat the same simple obvious scientific fact. I left Nessie confused
over the difference between being poisoned by CO but still being alive and being killed by CO. Hint- If you don't die that there will not be lividity.
Sooner or later, you and Nessie will read the science.
No, you ran from Nessie. Nessie kicked your ass on that thread.
David wrote:You are flipping around on what you are demanding that I answer...You do remember that you wrote,
"It is to give your a chance to clarify for us, given some of the dissonance, what revisionism really is. Try again."?
Right-o. I don't want you to repeat arguments on topics you've been trounced on. I want you to tell us what you deny and what you don't. Do you not understand that?
David wrote:So I explained it...something to do with "new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives."
So revisionism is blah-blah-blah generalities? Ok.
David wrote:Since the concept seems beyond you allow me to repeat again-
Revisionism starts with new evidence or applying scientific perspectives to the old Story.
Well, I didn't ask you what revisionism is - but you started wittering on about it, so I pointed you to McPherson's statement. But I was after what you deny. I even helped you out by asking whether it is as simple as six/gas/plan - or are there other things that keep getting cited by revisionists.
David wrote:To walk you through an easy example-
The Revisionist fact is, "Exhaust from an unloaded diesel cannot kill people." Obviously there are conditions and provisos...if the
exhaust is 450 degrees it could slowly kill people.
Revisionist conclusion- People were not killed with exhaust from an unloaded diesel.
David, I didn't ask you to repeat your past losses.
David wrote:I keep repeating the Mantra- Revisionism is a step by step process. It is a reassessment of evidence.
David wrote:NOW you are braying out a demand for "what Deniers deny."
Not really. I am telling you what the thread is for.
David wrote:I have politely shown you that "Denier" is an inaccurate slur designed to divert attention away from the actual Revisionist process.
I have politely given you a long list of Revisionist facts, most of which are generally accepted.
Revisionist facts! LOL

So you don't deny that the Nazis killed large numbers of people in gas chambers?

I am curious about the non-six/plan/gas topics I asked about. You've answered my question without realizing it. You've basically said, Maryzilla and Trollo are full of {!#%@}, don't believe them, we are defending the Third Reich. Thank you, you're tedious and repetitious and you meander, but thank you.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:14 am

scrmbldggs wrote:ty;dr
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:16 am

Jeff_36 wrote:I find David hilarious, and an easy opponent, good for one's self confidence. I can't help but feel so smart when responding to him.
Too easy. Uninteresting. Never leads to new understanding despite his adverts for revisionism.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26845
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:30 am

As I've said, I don't intend to use this thread, which is about what deniers specifically reject and accept, to dig into David's pet claims. But I do want to discuss issues in depth. So, to start with one topic, I've raised some questions for David here where we can explore pros and cons and evidence for David's claims and David can lay out his case, in context.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:42 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Scott, I'm wondering if you have visited other sites - of both persuasions - before you came to your suspicions (I'm not calling them conclusions, since you still seem to be asking)?

Maybe you should do that (there are many links provided here you could follow). It might help you assess and, perhaps, rethink the issue. And perhaps realize how outlandish your idea is.
Yes, I am still asking. But I also know that you can always find more and more elsewhere to this issue, I happen to be here for the discussion at present. I agree that I can possibly find the answers to it all without interactive discussion. But then I'd still be acting as I do, even with a potential different view. That is, I'd then be just acting with apparent resolve from that 'new' perspective. So I act (speak) unapologetic to my belief in the present from what I know without a pretense of ignorance and hope that others will participate with me in dialect to prove or disprove my position correct.

I had a meet with local skeptics to which one person commented that he likes to sometimes "throw [ideas] out there" even if they may be incorrect and make him look a 'fool' later on. Normally we presume that people are "fixed" by default and is why we hold onto other's public words as defining their position for all times. I don't think we have to fear this today with the Internet. People are constantly capable of change in view. But only with a constant willingness to participate can they affect those changes. I assure you that I'm not 'fixed' in my views. But when I argue, by default I speak with MY certainty at present.

I do come from a good background that qualifies me to speak even without knowing the contingent histories involved within this particular area. I'm tackling the logical factors here that are general in areas across different philosophical areas. I asked questions regarding "what is 'revisionism'" to determine what those of us here interpret this to mean. I think it is most significant to determine here for better progress in our personal discussions at hand. [It's not important what others in some other discussion groups hold and we don't all actually fit in with any given view so neatly.]
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:00 pm

Statistical Mechanic,

I hope that you reverse your decision to 'ignore' me. Obviously if you don't, you won't see this. But for 'hope' that you may change your mind, this is to you.

I think that you've asserted David's and other 'denier' positions as you've particularly defined them which tends to lack a willingness to actually open "them" to fair dialect because they are forced to first engage in a disproof that you set them up with to defend prior to them being able to posit themselves rationally. It doesn't mean that you are not correct but that you resist their view by negating them up front. I think this can be alright if you posit what their belief is (according to them, not yourself) and then demonstrate why or how they are mistaken. I think we'd have to begin with dealing with the philosophical underpinnings before addressing contingent 'facts'. The contingent 'facts' of history seem to be disputed which neither side can ever agree to. No amount of well intended authority to history helps without first dealing with human understanding of the different philosophies and motivations involved.

Besides not being able to accept the premises of given histories to the problems, if each comes in with different rules to the logical rules involved, each can come to rational conclusions given the same inputs of their different logic.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:19 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:Since Revisionism needs to start with something to revise, I started with the obvious formal and official Story
as presented at the Nuremberg Show Trial.
Ha! (a) It's not "obvious," since I am here to tell you that the scholars you reject don't start with that assumption. (b) The Nuremberg trial findings have been revised incessantly for 7 decades. (c) Scholars whom you reject have critiqued the trials themselves. (d) You've not told us, out of the vast amount of evidence and the findings, exactly what you agree with and what you disagree with.

Gawd SM Are you being obtuse for a reason?
You ask what Revisionism is and I tell you...then you bitch. So I quote "an authority" which says exactly what I said and you
claim you "already knew." Fine. Now we are on the same page as to the necessity and process of Revisionism.
So let's move on the what Revisionists have revised....inaccurately framed as "What do Deniers deny."

I thought it logical to start with the Nuremberg Tribunal.
I don't understand what you mean when you write, "I am here to tell you that the scholars you reject don't start with that assumption."
What are you trying to say?
Obviously the Tribunal findings have been revised incessantly. That does not vitiate their value as the starting "Story."



David wrote:Of course, you missed the fact that the Nuremberg Show Trial was not just about the Holocaust so I will repeat.
The Soviets used the Trial as a platform for anti-Capitalist propaganda, to pass the blame for Katyn onto the Germans, and
to create the propaganda image that the Germans wanted to exterminate Slavs and Roma.
The British and the French wanted to pass the blame for starting the War onto the Germans, since they are the
ones who actually declared war on Germany!
Tha Americans and the British wanted to justify the huge costs in money and blood of the War and to "excuse" the
terror bombing and murder of hundreds of thousands of women and children.
You misunderstand my point, or you are proving it. Maryzilla wants to tell us - and she thinks it should be obvious - that revisionists revise six/gas/plan. I wondered how this could be so given all the other stuff revisionists go on about. And here you are going on about those other things. So, again, please, what is it you deny? Everything in the IMT findings? Is it that simple? Anything beyond that - like the findings of scholars presented over the last seventy years? Or just everything in the IMT?

I don't limit revising history to "the Holocaust." The IMF was a show trial wherein the "Holocaust" was a part of a bigger
picture of German culpability.

David wrote:However, the Tribunal exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes by exaggeration or by outright fakery.
Ok, I hear you, you really don't like the Allies, you think I do, and you really like the Nazis. That is kind of what I was getting at. [/quote]
There you start with the smears, can't help yourself. I am a dyed-in-the-wool patriot but I guess your concept of being a good American is to look the other way when the government fakes evidence and bulls*ts the people.
By the way, my family served in armed services for the last four generations. What did your father/grandfather do in WW II so that you
can lecture me on "not liking the Allies?"