Was the Holocaust... a lie?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2012, 06:25 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
You can rant on about someone's misinformation about Dachau and make unconvincing generalizations from that, but the primary death camps were Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Auschwitz, and Majdanek.

I have met survivors. I would really like to see you tell one of them, face to face, that you dismiss the reality of their horror.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
12-03-2012, 06:39 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(12-03-2012 03:06 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  The holocaust isn't just part of your history, it's a part of the worlds history, I learned about it like you did in my school... except we didn't take field trips to fake gas chambers. We took field trips to the forest where me and the other children were left to fend for ourselves for 2 weeks, we were left with nothing to eat and only a canteen of water. From there we had to learn how to survive in the forest, at the end of the two weeks they came back to find us and those who were missing were presumed to have been eaten or died of other causes and left in the forest. We did this on a yearly basis for every grade we passed we had to spend another 2 weeks out in the woods. This went on for 13 years, until I graduated... to this day you can still go out in the forests and you might come across a wild man, the children who had been presumed dead and left behind in the forest surviving long enough to reach adulthood. Those were my field trips.

Just because we've graduated though doesn't mean we stop learning things, or relearning things we thought we knew.

?

This thing about the woods has me confused.

When and where was this? Why?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
12-03-2012, 07:22 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(12-03-2012 06:39 PM)Dom Wrote:  This thing about the woods has me confused.

When and where was this? Why?

It didn't happen, I was just telling a tall tale.

(12-03-2012 06:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  You can rant on about someone's misinformation about Dachau and make unconvincing generalizations from that, but the primary death camps were Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Auschwitz, and Majdanek.

I have met survivors. I would really like to see you tell one of them, face to face, that you dismiss the reality of their horror.

My services are not free, I charge 100$ per 'survivor' As for auschwitz I already discussed that the same applies to all camps. The gas chambers are all fakes, I could go anywhere online and get information regarding these 'gas chambers' to support my side. You could too, a lot of people have put a LOT of time into this. If you want me to return with information regarding that though you'll have to wait... one and a half hours. Watching 'the right stuff' and I usually do not disturb myself with this while watching movies.
Find all posts by this user
12-03-2012, 10:11 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
May I please? Thank you. Are you saying that there were no gas chambers, that genocide didn't happen or that the holocaust didn't happen? Or all of the above?

And I also wanted to ask, what does it mean that the holocaust didn't happen? How else would you call all those dead people, or let me rephrase it, how many people needs to be killed to call it a holocaust, or a genocide?

What is the difference between holocaust and genocide for you?

I would really like to see these questions answered, we can not proceed with the therapy if you do not comply.

Thank you for your patience.

Logic will prevail here!

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
12-03-2012, 10:18 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
So what's the point, then, of engaging in a discussion about these theories of conspiracy? If a person is to engage you, who has spent hours or days researching through your favored sources, then they must also have spent the hours or days researching through not only their sources but also yours in order to have an honest discussion. And even then, you will ultimately dismiss any evidence as false or unreliable with an almost religious fervor. It seems to be a waste of time that would ultimately bear no fruit.

But I guess whatever floats your boat. I suppose I've got other issues I prefer to spend my time on with my own 'religious fervor'.
Find all posts by this user
12-03-2012, 11:23 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(12-03-2012 10:11 PM)Filox Wrote:  May I please? Thank you. Are you saying that there were no gas chambers, that genocide didn't happen or that the holocaust didn't happen? Or all of the above?

And I also wanted to ask, what does it mean that the holocaust didn't happen? How else would you call all those dead people, or let me rephrase it, how many people needs to be killed to call it a holocaust, or a genocide?

What is the difference between holocaust and genocide for you?

I would really like to see these questions answered, we can not proceed with the therapy if you do not comply.

Thank you for your patience.

Logic will prevail here!

There were no gas chambers (except ones used for delousing) there was no holocaust, and there was no genocide (by the germans). If the holocaust didn't happen it would mean a huge government cover up on both allied and soviet sides, the creation and quite frankly poorly constructed imitations of gas chambers which were said to have been used for homicidal purposes. When referring to the holocaust one might say it is was a Jewish phenomenon so I will revert to genocide so I don't miss anything, I do not play a numbers game, genocide is the intent to murder an entire group of people based upon their ethnicity... but it requires intent based on ethnicity, without it, it simply becomes mass murder.

But back to the point of what it would mean, if it were a cover up it would mean the deliberate deception by the allies and the soviets participating in the war to not only fool their own countrymen but the entire world. Without it the Nazi's become far less sinister and one might further inquire about what the allies and the soviets would gain from making such a large scale cover up. Indeed one may even question how the war started in the first place. What is the difference between the holocaust and a genocide to me? Only the name.

As for therapy, you treat me as if I'm some mental case, I am no such thing but would like to consider myself a critical thinker of all matters that come towards my interest. My disbelief in the holocaust stems not only from the evidence amounting against it, but the lack of evidence to support itself from a purely scientific view. Testimonies are not used for scientific analysis which is what I based this on. I had always been troubled by the lack of physical evidence to support the holocaust, when the scientific analysis is done the side supporting the argument seems to beat around the bush rather than trying to support with their side scientific evidence of their own, something they should have done in the first place and not waited for the defense to come along. (they are the prosecution after all). And that little prick that did the analysis on the 'gas chambers' at the 'extermination camps' failed to take into account that some of them were actually delousing chambers. Also failing to take into account morgues would likely be more often fumigated than other places due to the large concentration of bodies carrying lice baring typhus, in which these morgues were confused as gas chambers as well. See that's the problem with their science, they do not take into account that what they're testing might not actually be a gas chamber, or a homicidal one at that. Therefore when they do their tests and they show signs of higher concentration of Zyklon B, they think it's because it was used for homicidal purposes! They don't even take into any other account but the ones they want. In some of their research the 'gas chambers' they tested showed no signs of zyklon B and instead of discounting them as 'gas chambers' they simply come up with another excuse.

From that article 'chemistry of the holocaust' which you can find in this thread somewhere.
Find all posts by this user
13-03-2012, 01:46 AM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2012 06:52 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(12-03-2012 11:23 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  
(12-03-2012 10:11 PM)Filox Wrote:  May I please? Thank you. Are you saying that there were no gas chambers, that genocide didn't happen or that the holocaust didn't happen? Or all of the above?

And I also wanted to ask, what does it mean that the holocaust didn't happen? How else would you call all those dead people, or let me rephrase it, how many people needs to be killed to call it a holocaust, or a genocide?

What is the difference between holocaust and genocide for you?

I would really like to see these questions answered, we can not proceed with the therapy if you do not comply.

Thank you for your patience.

Logic will prevail here!

There were no gas chambers (except ones used for delousing) there was no holocaust, and there was no genocide (by the germans). If the holocaust didn't happen it would mean a huge government cover up on both allied and soviet sides, the creation and quite frankly poorly constructed imitations of gas chambers which were said to have been used for homicidal purposes. When referring to the holocaust one might say it is was a Jewish phenomenon so I will revert to genocide so I don't miss anything, I do not play a numbers game, genocide is the intent to murder an entire group of people based upon their ethnicity... but it requires intent based on ethnicity, without it, it simply becomes mass murder.

But back to the point of what it would mean, if it were a cover up it would mean the deliberate deception by the allies and the soviets participating in the war to not only fool their own countrymen but the entire world. Without it the Nazi's become far less sinister and one might further inquire about what the allies and the soviets would gain from making such a large scale cover up. Indeed one may even question how the war started in the first place. What is the difference between the holocaust and a genocide to me? Only the name.

As for therapy, you treat me as if I'm some mental case, I am no such thing but would like to consider myself a critical thinker of all matters that come towards my interest. My disbelief in the holocaust stems not only from the evidence amounting against it, but the lack of evidence to support itself from a purely scientific view. Testimonies are not used for scientific analysis which is what I based this on. I had always been troubled by the lack of physical evidence to support the holocaust, when the scientific analysis is done the side supporting the argument seems to beat around the bush rather than trying to support with their side scientific evidence of their own, something they should have done in the first place and not waited for the defense to come along. (they are the prosecution after all). And that little prick that did the analysis on the 'gas chambers' at the 'extermination camps' failed to take into account that some of them were actually delousing chambers. Also failing to take into account morgues would likely be more often fumigated than other places due to the large concentration of bodies carrying lice baring typhus, in which these morgues were confused as gas chambers as well. See that's the problem with their science, they do not take into account that what they're testing might not actually be a gas chamber, or a homicidal one at that. Therefore when they do their tests and they show signs of higher concentration of Zyklon B, they think it's because it was used for homicidal purposes! They don't even take into any other account but the ones they want. In some of their research the 'gas chambers' they tested showed no signs of zyklon B and instead of discounting them as 'gas chambers' they simply come up with another excuse.

From that article 'chemistry of the holocaust' which you can find in this thread somewhere.

Just to the point on the zyklon B excuse debate, I looked at the articles connected to Wikipedia upon the Holocaust Denial & it's Holocaust Denial Criticism. It said after the tests by Leuchter were done showing no to little cyanide, there was other tests with another method showing their presence was there in a high enough amount in the delousing chambers/extermination chambers. It's not easy to argue and say one side would do biased research because it could be easily possible on both ends of the spectrum.

There is also a big hoopla about it being not as explosive like it is being talked of. It would be in large dosage but the report that it would of been ignited isn't necessarily legit. They said testimony reported the soldiers pulled body's after the deaths out of the chambers with lit cigarettes but it would need a much higher concentrate to be flammable.

I still don't see the major flaw here. Rounding up and limiting rights of selected groups of people is greatly inhuman. It was awful then, it was when the US did it to several groups and it was when the Soviets had it done then. I am not sure how one could argue that the discrimination and destruction of the Jewish population there wasn't a genocide. That's a genocide and sadly the treatment many of the Zionists inflicted onto the Palestinians shortly after was a genocide as well.
Find all posts by this user
13-03-2012, 04:37 AM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2012 04:43 AM by Eternal.)
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
From a speech made by Himmler.

"I am currently talking about the "evacuation" of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. 'The Jewish people is being exterminated,' every Party member will tell you, 'perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them."

From a speech given by Hitler.

"And we say that the war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation of the Jews"

From a 1922 interview with Hitler by a journalist.

"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows—at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example—as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews"

This is what happened when a court of law looks at it. They decide it is a fact. This was in a US Court, IHR would have had freedom of speech would they not? They could have presented their evidence.

The Institute for Historical Review publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz, submitted his own testimony as proof but it was ignored. He then sued IHR in the United States and the case was subsequently settled for $50,000, plus $40,000 in damages for personal suffering. The court declared the statement that "that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944" was a fact.

An entry from the diary of Jospeph Goebbles. I suppose this is a fake too.

February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

"Belief means not wanting to know what is true"
Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
13-03-2012, 06:41 AM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
Well Tinkerbell, That was an awful lot of nazi propaganda to go through but a couple of salient points leapt out.........

(12-03-2012 03:06 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  Also Zyklon B is flammable (as well as explosive) so building a gas chamber next to a fire is not a good idea.

Did you mean this to sound as though having Zyklon B next to a furnace would be silly and preposterous and downright dangerous. WOW I never thought of it like that.

(12-03-2012 03:06 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  My disbelief in the holocaust stems not only from the evidence amounting against it, but the lack of evidence to support itself from a purely scientific view.

OH, a scientific view... OK lets look at the science (chemistry) behind Zyklon B.
Could you tell me at what temperature Zyklon B bursts into flames ?
Could you tell me what temperature the furnaces got too. ?

Could you tell me what ppm Zyklon B needs to be at before it explodes ?
Could you tell me what ppm it was actually used at. ?

These questions should be easy to answer if you have been looking at the science.
The chemistry will tell you that Zyklon B is not flammable nor explosive if it is next to a "fire"

You disingenuous lying bag of shite.

(12-03-2012 03:06 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  And that little prick that did the analysis on the 'gas chambers' at the 'extermination camps' failed to take into account that some of them were actually delousing chambers. Also failing to take into account morgues would likely be more often fumigated than other places due to the large concentration of bodies carrying lice baring typhus, in which these morgues were confused as gas chambers as well. See that's the problem with their science, they do not take into account that what they're testing might not actually be a gas chamber, or a homicidal one at that. Therefore when they do their tests and they show signs of higher concentration of Zyklon B, they think it's because it was used for homicidal purposes!

More science (biology) questions for you fluffy -

Do you know the difference between anaerobic bacteria and aerobic organisms ?
Does Zyklon B kill anaerobic bacteria or aerobic organisms.
What is typhus - anaerobic bacteria or aerobic organism
Does killing lice kill typhus ?

Again the answers will be easy to find, because you have done all the scientific research.
So why do you say that Zyklon B would be used for delousing and fumigation when it is of no use for that purpose.

Again you are a dishonest lying douche. who knows little about science or scientific enquiry.
Yet you continue to discount real science for made up pseudo-scientific bullshit, at the expense and disregard of millions who died and suffered horrendously....

WHY ? what is your agenda ? Because it's certainly not the pursuit of knowledge is it.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Sol's post
13-03-2012, 06:55 AM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
Damn it TheArcticSage, how the do you expect me to treat you any other than a mental patient after you talk like this? I'm sorry, but it's your doing, not mine.

Look here, I like conspiracy theories and I do not like the state of Israel (their politics to be precise) and I do believe that the Jewish people had used holocaust and WW2 suffering after the war, they used it and they are still using it to gain some other things.

That all does not deny or disprove WW2 events concerning their people. It also does not change my perspective on the war, the Europe, Nazi Germany and the holocaust/genocide that happened. It only shows my personal feelings/thinking about something.

Let us say that there really were no gas chambers, that some of the things were exaggerated, it is a well known fact that the winners write history, but what do you call all those dead bodies in concentration camps then? How can you call that if not genocide? What about all those skinny Jews that barely survived? What about the shots in the head, starvations, throat cuttings? Isn't that a genocide as well? When I read what you are saying, I have a feeling that you think that all those pictures are photoshop, all the testimonies are false and even USA and British troops that saw the camps and their records, that is all false...

[Image: bergenbelsen3.jpg]

[Image: khmelnitski-proskurov-grave.jpg]

[Image: bergenbelsen.jpeg]

Please, just explain these pictures to me than, there are thousands of them, with hundreds of locations... What is this? Is this not the product of something large scaled, something that can be called a genocide? I really want to see how someone can explain all this dead bodies, but then deny it happened? And I'm not talking about gas chambers, as far as I can see, they do not need to exist for the holocaust to happen. If you follow the WW2 history, you will know that those chambers were put to use at the end of war, not the beginning, so they did not even need to exist for millions of death to happen.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: