Calling all Debunkers, and anyone who thinks Holocaust Denial is offensive, debunk this!

World Population Clock

Now I really think they are wrong.

Religion Population

I was adding it all up, and I'm pretty sure not nearly everyone in the world is religious, and I only added the big ones and I'm already pretty close to the population.

What it means, I'm not sure. Perhaps though, people are going to embellish a bit, regardless what they are talking about. WW2 was horrible, and we should learn what we can from our evil past, whether it was fabricated information or not. Genocide, and holocausts, and slaughters, and Shock and Awes are bad. And we should be beyond all of this by now. Its 2010

www.codoh.com...

This study is way to long to post and would be futile to post snippets due to the technical nature of the Crematoria study which is accompanied by documentation. You need to really read and understand the whole thing.

You just have to read the ADL . org page on the Institute for Historical Review and on Mark Weber to realize the tactics employed by the Zionists to keep the lies perpetuating. Ad homs(anti-semite, holocaust denier, etc) is not a way to debate and that is all the ADL uses against those it deems a threat to Zionism.

reply to post by LordBucket



Here is the link that you possibly missed

www.skepdic.com...

Do take a look at it. we are not discussing the vbalue absolute zero or the true value of pi to the 80th decimal point. The holocaust denial is not a neutral activity itis frankly a transparent attempt by anti semites and the right wingers to rehabilitate the monstrosity of the Nazi's by attacking the most potent symbol of their rule which was an act of genocide.

I would say some people are cowards because they use weasel words to attempt to attack a historical fact.

What is the hidden agenda behind the holocaust deniers? Apart from their dubious politics and or attitudes?

Again for me 6 million, one million or 1 Jew it is still an act of gross inhumanity. In that respect the exact number does not matter wrong my friend has been done. I take issue at that. Do you? I have also seem the tattoed jews. Have you? How did you feel when you saw them. I have also seen the scientific papers on high altitude experiments as have many undergraduates who took human physiology. If you are an anti-semite then please have the courage of your convictions and state so outright.

I am an anti Nazi just in case you hadn't noticed.

www.patriot.dk...
www.patriot.dk...

Well sourced resource for how the lies were enforced at the Nuremberg trials. Again, notice the ADL's page on Mark Weber, they can't debate the facts so they attack the man.
As an American, I am appalled with the way that the US and other allied forces treated the captured NAZIS and soldiers.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

History is not written by "general opinion". History
is written by Historians, scholars.

Or as the adage phrases it, "History is written by victors."

the position you attribute to those people may exist in
the media and on discussion boards, but you will not find
it in the writings of serious historians.

The vast majority of people are not historians, serious or otherwise. Yes, it's entirely possible that this anger doesn't exist amongst researchers. But it does seem to exist in enough places that it's a criminal offense to claim that it didn't happen.

Think about that. It is illegal in many parts of the world to say the holocaust didn't happen. People will come and take you away and throw you in prison for years. Even if we step away from the legal implications in faraway countries...look right here at home. Read through this thread and look at the number of people calling names and flinging insults at people. Look at the anger.

It's not ok, it's not healthy, and saying that "oh, well...historical researchers don't feel that way" doesn't make it better.

If you have compelling, source-dervided evidence that
the Holocaust happened in a different way or with way
less victims then for god sake's write it down

I have none, and I have no vested interest in seeking any.

I do have a vested interest in encouraging people to not to be angry over something that happened before they were born. I do have a vested interested in living in a socety where I don't have to worry about making some casual comment and being insulted and acussed of "hatred" for it.

The law prohibits blanket denial and inciting racial
hatred (in most countries). The law is not there to
inhibit scholarly research.

I don't care about scholarly research. If somebody says "hey guys, the holocaust, the moon landing and JFK's assassination....none of those things ever happened." I assert that I do not want to live in a society where that person risks jailtime for it. I don't want to live in a socety where that person can expect ridicule and insults and may be taken to court for it.

Jack Chick publishes pamphlets that in my view says some absurdly stupid things. But I assert that it's not reasonable for me to get offended and angry and attack him for it.

you aren't that extreme .. You seem rather rational

Thank you. To me it's not about the issue. It's about how people handle the issue. This doesn't need to be a problem, but people make it a problem.

There's a story about a crippled horse who can't reach his feed bag because the other horses trip him whenever he goes near the feed and taunt him for being a cripple. So the stableboy ties the legs of the other horses so they can see what it's like to be crippled. And what does the genuinely crippled horse do? He hogs the food and and taunts the others horses.

Once the crippled horse does that, he is no longer the victim. He is the perpetrator.

Regarding the holocaust, that line has long since been crossed.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO


Well sourced resource for how the lies were enforced at the Nuremberg trials.

That the first Nuremberg trials were political in nature is not disputed. A few pages back in this thread it is discussed.
To claim that the Military Tribunal was tasked with proving personal guilt or establishing the absolute truth on the camp question is a gross distortion. The trials of the individual camp guards and commanders came later (50's,60's) and by then the documentary evidence was so overwhelming that they were undisputable.

Nurember was not the last word on the Holocaust. It was never intended to be. It was the first of many trials, and it was about giving a general picture of the crime and establishing the guilt of the leading elite. Feel free to read through Robert Jackson's or Telford Taylor's writings - it's black on white there. It's also in the talks between the allies and it can be found in Roosevelts communications with Eisenhower.

If you are looking for hard, technical, empirical proof of indiviual guilt and individual methods implemented in the mass killings, the only trials that will be of help in research are the individual camp trials of the 50's and 60's. They were not held by the Americans or any other allies. There was no pressure there. They had no problem with convincingly documenting all they accused the former Nazis of.

To point to Nuremberg - a trial held shortly after the war, when only a small sample of documents were sighted and the allies were just beginning to get a clear picture of what happened - as "evidence" for "there being no evidence" is disingenious, intellectually dishonest or just plain irgnorant. They didn't have the means nor the order to do so. Saying so is extremely naive. Please go look at the later trials.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Have you completely read through the documents I presented and understood/comprehended it all? I find that suspect because that is a lot of reading in a short time, unless you have read those pieces previously.

Can I ask what specifically you have a problem with? Is there misinformation in there for which you have proof? You can't marginalize the importance of the facts present in only a few paragraphs.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by ken10
No, the "Drivel" comes from those who cannot accept FACTS. But try to use said "Drivel" to lesson the value of those Facts.

What facts? That possibly 1.5 million died instead of 6?

How is 1.5 million dying more justifiable?

1.5 Million people. Thats like wiping Valencia, or Zurich, or Tyneside, or Portsmouth completely off the map.

And you think thats justified somehow because the original number might have been factually incorrect?

Of course numbers matter, i don't think anyone is saying it lessens the atrocity committed whether it is 1.5million or 6 million... attempting to discover accurate figures about an event in history is plain old common sense, simply saying "ohh it doesn't matter" is quite frankly absurd, why don't we apply your logic to many other events in history and see where we end up?...a piss poor and inaccurate version of history is where we would end up.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

Have you completely read through the documents I presented and understood/comprehended it all? I find that suspect because that is a lot of reading in a short time, unless you have read those pieces previously.

Can I ask what specifically you have a problem with? Is there misinformation in there for which you have proof? You can't marginalize the importance of the facts present in only a few paragraphs.

I am familiar with Mark Weber's critique of the Nuremberg trials. Mark Weber thinks he has established that the Nuremberg trials did not prove any of the specific crimes against the jews and the rest.

And he is right. Nuremberg wasn't held to do that and Nuremberg didn't have the means to do that. The point is completely moot because it operates under the premise that Nuremberg was held to conclusively prove that the Holocaust took place. That is a false premise.

Many other - and smarter - historians before me have invited Mark Weber to apply his methodology to the German-held trials in the 50's and 60's - there the premise is at least a given. Neither he nor any other of the Reivsionists have done so so far.

I don't have to adress individual points of Mark Weber's article because the premise is faulty. This is the third time in this thread that someone brings up the "Nuremberg" argument, and this is the third time I've explained it. If you failed to get my point feel free to read the whole thread (something one should always do, or at least skim it) and you'll notice that your argument has already been discussed.

Mark Weber should analyze the trials that were held to establish the truth and the guilt. He should not randomly pick the first show trial and then be astonished that they didn't want to, nor had the orders to, nor could conclusively prove all the crimes. I'm sorry but this has really been adressed numerous times in this thread.

I can only again advise you to study: Robert Jackson's writings, Telford Taylor's, the Allied Supreme court documents, Roosevelts delibarations with Eisenhower. etc. The point is made very clear there. It seems Mark Weber doesn't want to notice.

reply to post by Solomons

i don't think anyone is saying it lessens the
atrocity committed whether it is 1.5million or 6 million

...well, if nobody has yet, I'll say it:

Murdering 1.5 million people is less of an atrocity than murdering 6 million people.

Is this really a point of contention? Yes, killing 6 million people is more significant than killing one and a half million. Killing 1.5 million is therefore less significant than killing 6 million.

I'm not understanding why anyone would disagree with this.

Great Thread!

Something that a thinking person could use to EASILY divide the Intellectuals from the pseudo intellectuals.

FACT: The "jews" we are referring to are not "Jewish/hebrew" in the least. They are descendents of the Kazhars from Kazhakistan who converted to JUDAISM in the 10th century or so i.e. CAUCASIANS although they have KEPT TO THEIR OWN for so long that they do indeed have a slew of genetic issues as a result of INBREEDING (a very shallow gene pool) and thus have many distinctive features that the world mistakes for JEW HEBREW SEMITE.

Thus, no JEWS were killed in Nazi germany.

I will repeat that PROUDLY... NO JEW WAS KILLED IN NAZI GERMANY

People claiming to be RACIALLY jewish, Ashkenazi Jews mainly were perhaps systematically rounded up by the Nazi's, killed or allowed to die as they labored away etc etc et al. Yet I will repeat that NO JEW was killed by the nazi's as far as this "HOLOCAUST" story goes... along with anyone who disagreed with nazism.

Facts are facts. Go do some research into the genetics of JEWS/HEBREWS/SEMITES and you will find the hidden truth = these people, these Caucasians were not racially Hebrew/semitic/Jewish.

Gotta love the ability of science, prior to its subversion, to shed a BLINDING LIGHT on old distortions of truth.

I believe the greater tragedy, overlooked or buried in lies is the HOLODOMOR.

en.wikipedia.org...HOLODOMOR

The truth behind the HOLODOMOR is that the Jewish (fake jew) dominated Russian Bolshevik government starved upwards of 10-14 million WHITE/Europeans. Their excuse is a failed quota system = nonsense.

Imagine some current government starving millions and then blaming it on a sort of "clerical error"...

The Holodomor could be considered the REAL HOLOCAUST of that period yet most people have never heard of it, that and the fire bombing of entire german cities, towns and things such as railways. Railways that often times carried much needed supplies to places such as SHELTERS, HOSPITALS and yes, to concentration camps.

one must wonder why? No?
All you fake jews out there ever wonder why?

Because some of these issues are used to obtain sympathy from the world, to gain support for founding a FAKE JEWISH homeland in the middle east for instance and other nefarious extrapolated points of exploit whilst others were never meant to see the light of day, to never to cast a shadow upon that beam in thine own eye.

I am not an ANTI SEMITE as you are not a Jew/semite!

Dig it?

I declare this day that I have converted to JUDAISM = I am now a JEW as per this substrictus visum that anyone who claims to be something, is that something...

Say anything about my JEWISHNESS and I will declare you an anti semite!!! See how easy that was?
To villify you and your ilk?

Now I can use my new found faith to pay the check for my past and future transgressions.

I know that YOU are "getting" the GIST of what I am saying here.
All the way to the core.

I apologize as my waking thoughts this morning were not to offend.

My intentions were not to come here and defend Nazis, Hitler et al.
It is easy for me to see the KNOT between the international banksters and every conflict since or perhaps even before the French Revolution yet I did not kick/beat/lean-upon that dead horse this day.

Nope, just wanted to shed alittle light on that which we perceive to be a RACIALLY MOTIVATED CRIME i.e. the Holocaust.

If someone in todays legal system were being tried for what is now termed a HATE CRIME... The discrepancy between race, or even "perceived racial status" would be UBER IMPORTANT as I would think it would be at any point in the past, present or future.

Nazi's were not aryans, the swastika is an ancient symbol and many more interesting bits are for other threads that are probably already available and widely discussed here on ATS

Originally posted by Solomons


Of course numbers matter, i don't think anyone is saying it lessens the atrocity committed whether it is 1.5million or 6 million... attempting to discover accurate figures about an event in history is plain old common sense, simply saying "ohh it doesn't matter" is quite frankly absurd, why don't we apply your logic to many other events in history and see where we end up?...a piss poor and inaccurate version of history is where we would end up.

I totally understand your sentiments. But honestly, do you see anyone of the Revisionists ever conduct exact studies? Did they ever re-calibrate the numbers and bring them to discussion? I wouldn't remember.

Go and look through the Videos. These Videos do not make that case that "only 1.5 Million" were killed. The aim of the video is quite clearly not to provide a better sourced, more scientific number than 6 million.

Also don't forget that the 6 million number is not a number propagated by Historians in general. It has just become something like the standard number for laymen. Historians never defended the 6 million number a priori. There has been an open, unstiffled debate about the exact numbers ever since it happened.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Ah, but you assume the paper is to establish the (Jewish) Holocaust as fact an no other purpose. If the information in the article is factual, then that proves the whole trials where a farce to establish German guilt for anything the accusers decided to accuse. If most or all of the testimony at the trials where made under duress(personal threats, threats against family, physical and/or mental abuse) then how can any of that be believed?
People will say anything you want under torture or threats of torture, it's not a legitimate method to extract testimony/admissions.

Edit: sorry if I missed previous discussions on the Nuremberg trials, but I tend to not take the time to read posts that contain ad homonyms in the first line or paragraph.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by PplVSNWO]

Originally posted by Ningishzida
Great Thread!

Something that a thinking person could use to EASILY divide the Intellectuals from the pseudo intellectuals.

FACT: The "jews" we are referring to are not "Jewish/hebrew" in the least.

Poppycock.

www.nytimes.com...

www.pnas.org...

Facts are facts. Go do some research into the genetics of JEWS/HEBREWS/SEMITES and you will find the hidden truth = these people, these Caucasians were not racially Hebrew/semitic/Jewish.

Funny how Genetecists have a different view on that - as provided by the link. Who am I gonna trust? The guy in the lab whose actually done it or the guy repeating long debunked fables about the jews from the 1920's and 30's??

All you fake jews out there ever wonder why?


I am not an ANTI SEMITE as you are not a Jew/semite!

Good thing for people of the Jewish faith that they don't give a damn about your personal definitions.

My intentions were not to come here and defend Nazis, Hitler et al.
It is easy for me to see the KNOT between the international banksters and every conflict since or perhaps even before the French Revolution yet I did not kick/beat/lean-upon that dead horse this day.

That's interesting. Many people have tried to prove that since about 500 years. No one has done so this far. If you're such a genius why not write it all down and get yourself a doctorate with it? If it's the truth and you've got the sources they can't touch you. Weird that you never done that when you're the only one in possession of the truth.



[edit on 8-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

Edit: sorry if I missed previous discussions on the Nuremberg trials, but I tend to not take the time to read posts that contain ad homonyms in the first line or paragraph.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by PplVSNWO]

Sorry put your whole post is moot. If you don't want to read the rest of the thread that's ok. But in that case refrain from repeating already discussed posts.

You have not addressed anything that I have written. This is the fifth and last time I am going to write this out: Nuremberg was not held to establish individual guilt about specific crimes. It was to give an overall picture and establish collective guilt.

It was neither the intention, nor the job, nor a possibility for the first Nurembert trial to conclusively prove the Holocaust. My previous posts are full of examples why this was the case ad where you can read that in the sources.

Mark Weber's whole premise is false. Even if 100% of the testimony at Nuremberg were faked it doesn't matter. The real, detailed trials that dealt with individual crimes and individual camps were held later. The testimony there holds up to all criticism, as do the documents. If Mark Weber would want to make his point, it would only have merit as applied to the trials of the 50's and the 60's - not the Nuremberg trials. I have extensively explained this in many of my last posts.

And the ad-hominem copout is just that. I did not start any of my answers with ad-homs.

Please adress these points and not just repeat what Mark Weber said. If the Nuremberg trials were not held to establish definitive proof of the Holocaust, then how can the contents of that trial be taken as defintive proof that it didn't happen?

And how come does Mark Weber not analyze the trials that were held to establish definitive proof? Could it be that he doesn't because the documents and testimonies used therein were - other than at Nuremberg - waterproof?

The political nature and the "show trial" aspect of the Nuremberg trial is widely accepted by scholars today.

See any modern publication about them; especially Jan Erik Schulte's recent work. These are all points that refute the premise that Mark Weber is using in the article you linked.

Originally posted by Tiger5
reply to post by LordBucket

 

Here is the link that you possibly missed

www.skepdic.com...

Do take a look at it. we are not discussing the vbalue absolute zero or the true value of pi to the 80th decimal point. The holocaust denial is not a neutral activity itis frankly a transparent attempt by anti semites and the right wingers to rehabilitate the monstrosity of the Nazi's by attacking the most potent symbol of their rule which was an act of genocide.

I would say some people are cowards because they use weasel words to attempt to attack a historical fact.

What is the hidden agenda behind the holocaust deniers? Apart from their dubious politics and or attitudes?

Again for me 6 million, one million or 1 Jew it is still an act of gross inhumanity. In that respect the exact number does not matter wrong my friend has been done. I take issue at that. Do you? I have also seem the tattoed jews. Have you? How did you feel when you saw them. I have also seen the scientific papers on high altitude experiments as have many undergraduates who took human physiology. If you are an anti-semite then please have the courage of your convictions and state so outright.

I am an anti Nazi just in case you hadn't noticed.

OK read my post then read your post.... my post your post....

Not working? Read my post again + think a minute this time.

I just re read your post again maybe 2-3 times and yep! I do declare that your position is precariously perched upon a pile of putridity.
Something that you were "taught" no less thus I will not blame you entirely as I understand the power of the construct and mankinds ability to delude itself without any need of an agent provocateur.

Look, Judaism postulates that the JEWS are indeed special. A special race with special abilities as convened by "God".

Sound familiar?

Does this sound familiar yes or no! AND if your answer is yes then tell me the 20th Century equivilent would you, could you please?

I rest my M***** F***** case your Honour!

NAZISM = ELITISM = JUDAISM = ZIONISM = NATIONALISM = USA #1 = GO FIGHT WIN!-ism etc etc ad nauseum et al.

*quicky jumps up overturns the table, papers flying in air like so many dying swans, exits the courtroom hastily whilst mumbling something about traveling back in time to relieve Ockham of his tongue!*

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Mark Weber's whole premise is false. Even if 100% of the testimony at Nuremberg were faked it doesn't matter. The real, detailed trials that dealt with individual crimes and individual camps were held later. The testimony there holds up to all criticism, as do the documents. If Mark Weber would want to make his point, it would only have merit as applied to the trials of the 50's and the 60's - not the Nuremberg trials. I have extensively explained this in many of my last posts.

Am I reading this correctly? It doesn't matter if 100% of the testimony used to establish NAZI guilt is faked?
I realize the revelations on the trials don't disprove the Holocaust tale, but it does raise more questions on the why of extracting false testimony.
Since you don't seem to refute the facts in Mark Weber's paper, but rather attempt to minimalize the revelations of the torture and treatment of those on the stand at Nuremberg, you have alterior motives than learning and spreading historical truths. Your methods seem to be to attack the author by means of attacking their motives, this does not debate the implications of the facts of that paper at all.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Huge trap.

We are ALL related and thus you will find many DNA markers that DIALECTICALLY/SEMANTICALLY can be construed to fit into any racially charged agenda.

We are ALL descendant from adam and eve, Noah etc and that which made the Abrahamic Semites was also in ALL OF THE REST OF US prior to its PERCEIVED distinction.

Ooh the NY Times is very impressive and I really like how your PNAS link says nothing more then what I have described above and if anyone wishes to say much more then WE ALL SHARE A COMMON ANCESTRY they are postulating such on very shaky ground indeed.

Are you aware of the power of SEMANTICS/DIALECTIC?

ALSO, to your final STATEMENT "That's interesting. Many people have tried to prove that since about 500 years. No one has done so this far. If you're such a genius why not write it all down and get yourself a doctorate with it? If it's the truth and you've got the sources they can't touch you. Weird that you never done that when you're the only one in possession of the truth."

I wish to assure you that your attempt to help me feel isolated is wasted energy as I know that I am not alone with this and that many brave people went where we are NOT SUPPOSED TO GO/THINK in order for me to receive the information initially.

Hell, most of this is common sense deduction just from reading what has been written and then thinking about what has not been said yet which seems completely obvious.

You speak of the JEWS and their FAITH as if every jew has a faith, as if every jew is the same, much like people speak about americans and their hatred of them or their hatred for what americans do as if we are our government, as if we have power en masse and that the power does not instead lay with the few elite, as it almost always has.

and to not understand the POWER of GOLD i.e. the connection to banking and all conflicts??? I mean really now

reply to post by filosophia


Zyklon B was used as a pesticide/delouser (if I recall correctly), but worked effectively because when exposed to oxygen, the base compound produced hydryogen cyanide or hydrocyanic acid in gaseous form, some variant of hydrogen cyanide anyways - i.e. a very lethal gas when inhaled.

As for the other points you raise, I can't comment on the veracity of any of those assertions, but as something of an amateur historian with a great interest particularly in the SS (the actual organisation responsible for the logistics and actual perpetration of the Holocaust), I can simply say that anyone who has spent any time doing any research on said organisation will know that the evidence for a continuing programme of murder of Jews, gypsies, slavs, Communists, homosexuals, and other 'undesirables' is in plain abundance.

The SS profited enormously from it's (mainly) jewish slave labor, with much of the armed SS formations being employed solely for the purposes of extermination; although the SS fielded several million men in armored formations that fought alongside Heer units (the 'Waffen SS'), it also maintained a sizable portion of SS members whose field organisations were solely for the purpose of either mobile liquidation and counter-partisan fighting in the rear, behind the advancing Heer on the Eastern Front. These SS field divisions were the 'Einsatzgruppen', A-E if I recall. These were the groups who participated in/perpetrated the large public executions on the Eastern front, where the M.O. was to force the prisoners to dig a large ditch, and then simply gun them down and throw them into the open pit.

Due to the inefficiency of this process though (and the inability of some of the SS men to handle the psychological toll of such actions), the SS later began (post-Wannsee conference) to being transporting, en masse, those destined for liquidation to the large 'Death Camps' in Poland. The paperwork detailing such prisoner transfers is immense, and therein lies the greatest proof of all of an organized attempt to eradicate the jewish race from existence. The Deutsche Bahn charged the SS a certain price for every prisoner transported on it's rail, thus profiting rather handsomely from the whole affair. To recoup such costs, the SS harvested whatever they could from the bodies of the recently deceased, having previously confiscated all their material possessions. The SS, being German, were obviously meticulous in keeping track of what was coming and going, and although there is never any explicit mention of murder in any of the SS documentation, the reference to 'special treatment' of several hundreds of thousands or millions at the Konzentrationslagers Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc. provide lasting testament to the mass-murder which took place there.

Furthermore, the SS also maintained a sizable corps of men to staff these camps; the SS Totenkopfverbande, also known as the Death's Head Formations. They were the only SS corps to continue wearing the all-black uniform of the prior SS-VT (verfugungstruppe - 'general SS') from which the Death's Head units were drawn.

The anecdotal, empirical, photographic, and documentary evidence of the Holocaust having actually happened is so overwhelming that to honestly even make the claim that none of it ever happened, at the absolute best, shows nothing but a blatant disregard and wanton refusal to acknowledge obvious historic fact.

If you need further proof, I would highly recommend reading the thoroughly brilliant 'Order of the Death's Head' - the seminal work on the SS. Detailed therein are countless documents and examples of the Holocaust being a central purpose and objective of the SS, with numerous anecdotes pertaining to almost constant German Army complaints about the behaviour of the SS men and numerous SS officers and adjutants reprimanded for refusing to participate.

reply to post by LordBucket


nvm

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Solomons]