The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Bonesjones]

I think the Bigfoot story suffers because the witness evidence is very inconsistent, unlike with gas vans, and a lot of it has been hoaxed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Dyer_(hoaxer)

Aww look at you backpedal. You still use holocaust controversy blog despite them provingly passing on fraudulent documents. So you clearly don't care about that standard. So do you believe in Bigfoot or are you wrong? That's your only option. You set the standard and I gave you ridiculous things that meet that standard. So what will you admit? Nothing?

There's also no mechanism to explain the lack of big foot remains, whereas there clearly is with gas vans. The Nazis modified or destroyed them after their purpose was fulfilled, which makes perfect sense.

Fur and bones rapidly decay in nature, if you knew anything about nature (you don't). Where as special purpose machines are hard to hide, even more so when they are multiple custom built ones. How many one off prototypes were found all over the world? Why would they need to destroy them? I thought they were genocidal maniacs killing any jew they could get their hands on?


So again we are expected to believe the Nazis built special gas vans so they could secretly kill people in the woods so it's easier to bury them. Despite the fact no one else would know or find out. I guess bullets were too expensive, so they had even more expensive custom vans built to do the same job but worse. We know this because 2 or 3 memos might reference them but it's all incomplete and uses code words. So there is no blueprint for these things nor did anyone attest to building or using them. Then they magically disappeared.

 

[Chugger]

Why would they need to destroy them? I thought they were genocidal maniacs killing any jew they could get their hands on?

To cover up their crimes. It makes sense to me that most were modified after there were no more non-employable Jews to kill and were thereafter used as regular cargo trucks.

The documents are very clear that they were being used for homicidal purposes, so I don't understand your complaints about code words.

You still use holocaust controversy blog despite them provingly passing on fraudulent documents

This is a good example of your delusions. There's no proof of anything. Just accusations. Another guy here just called you a rabbi, I guess that means you are one.

Also these documents are widely known in the literature, have been used in trials, thoroughly examined by revisionists like David Irving. You are an ignoramus.

 

[Bonesjones]

To cover up their crimes.

So they build purpose death vans to hide the fact they are killing people? Which leaves a long trail of evidence far beyond just shooting someone? Makes sense if you are a fucking doofus.

It makes sense to me that most were modified after there were no more non-employable Jews to kill and were thereafter used as regular cargo trucks.

So they ran out of jews to kill now? Except for the millions left. Your ability to stretch credibility knows no bounds. So they built special gas vans to kill people they didn't kill, then they hid it by converting them back to normal trucks? That's a lot of time and effort for something you can solve with 2 dollars worth of ammo. You'll believe anything a holocaust promoter will tell you.

The documents are very clear that they were being used for homicidal purposes, so I don't understand your complaints about code words.

Where do they say that explicitly? I thought they were trying to hide it.

This is a good example of your delusions.

You don't know what that word even means.

There's no proof of anything. Just accusations.

Uh oh did we stumble upon the truth, do you run holocaust controversy and you are trying to drum up traffic to your own site? To think you'd be so unethical. Hiding your connections and motivations.

Another guy here just called you a rabbi, I guess that means you are one.

I don't care what people call me or think about me, they can argue my ideas or fuck off.

Also these documents are widely known in the literature, have been used in trials, thoroughly examined by revisionists like David Irving. You are an ignoramus.

Prove it then, where did they get used. We want direct citations, not that you know what they are.

Also I can't help but notice you ignore vast swaths of what I say. Why are you so embarrassed? It's OK to admit you are wrong or that you love Bigfoot and want to your secret romance hidden because of what people would think.

 

[Chugger]

Prove it then, where did they get used. We want direct citations, not that you know what they are.

You're boring me with your ill informed questions and your disrespectful attitude makes me even more unsympathetic but I'll show you this from 2000 (from when David Irving sued Penguin Books) , in reference to the above Just Memo

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2711holocaust.html

Irving has previously conceded the existence of these gas vans, acknowledging an eye-witness account from the SS Colonel responsible for "Jewish Affairs", Adolf Eichmann. But he continues to claim that they were used only on an experimental basis. The defense enters into evidence an SS document of June 1942.

RAMPTON: "Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed by three trucks in action, without any defects in the vehicles being encountered"

IRVING: Shall we go straight to the bottom line and say yes, I fully accept the innuendo you are placing on that document.

RAMPTON: Innuendo?

IRVING: It is not stated clearly but quite clearly 97,000 people have been liquidated in these trucks.

RAMPTON: In three trucks?

IRVING: Over the months concerned.

RAMPTON: No, it is actually just about a month and a week. 97,000 people in three trucks during the course of five weeks.

IRVING: That is a very substantial achievement if you work it out with a pocket calculator.

RAMPTON: Clever SS.

JUSTICE GRAY: Is it very experimental?

IRVING: My Lord, I did not have this document at the time I said that. I had this document five or six months ago.

JUSTICE GRAY: Answer the question even so. Would you describe it as "very limited" and "experimental"?

IRVING: Not on this scale. This is systematic.

RAMPTON: It is systematic, huge scale, using gas trucks to murder Jews.

IRVING: Yes. No question at all, but you have failed to establish the link upwards to Hitler.

 

[Bonesjones]

You're boring me with your ill informed questions and your disrespectful attitude makes me even more unsympathetic but I'll show you this from 2000 (from when David Irving sued Penguin Books) , in reference to the above Just Memo

No one cares, you can leave or stop posting. I notice you didn't deny your link to the holocaustcontroversies blog. So I guess you are guilty. It explains a lot. Not only are you every pejorative we've labeled you, but somehow even worse.

Also your big quotation is a snippet of a court case from a show. Not even the actual transcripts but a tiny bit editorialized for idiots. I'm assuming that's why you'd find it enlightening. David Irving even makes fun of them for thinking it's real right in court.

 

[Dieter Laser]

Simon Weisenthal was proven to be lying and he wasn't stricken from the record, nor Elie Weisal, nor Anne Frank's dad. Huh all these people lying about the holocaust and getting caught. Yet no one dares to say maybe eyewitness testimony about the holocaust is useless.

Serious question, since I do NOT want to google this, what all did Weisal lie about? I have only read Night, once, before a speaking engagement he was at. I don’t really remember anything from it, it was honestly boring AF.

Not trolling, neutral on the subject, just here to learn and debate.

 

[TJT]

Serious question, since I do NOT want to google this, what all did Weisal lie about? I have only read Night, once, before a speaking engagement he was at. I don’t really remember anything from it, it was honestly boring AF.

Not trolling, neutral on the subject, just here to learn and debate.

Thinking about this.

When I was in K12 in Oregon both Night and Anne Frank were required reading in high school. I want to say that this was Freshman or Sophomore year of high school. Both of these sucked compared to Wuthering Heights. Which I actually really liked.

Most likely Weisal heavily exaggerated shit , like they all do. Was Night the one where he got some other Jew executed because he lost his hat and stole somebody else's? The punishment for that was death or something like that?

 

[Dieter Laser]

Thinking about this.

When I was in K12 in Oregon both Night and Anne Frank were required reading in high school. I want to say that this was Freshman or Sophomore year of high school. Both of these sucked compared to Wuthering Heights. Which I actually really liked.

Most likely Weisal heavily exaggerated shit , like they all do. Was Night the one where he got some other Jew executed because he lost his hat and stole somebody else's? The punishment for that was death or something like that?

I was forced to take a Philosophy of the Holocaust class for my major and we had to read so much god awful stuff and meet Wiesel and some other “survivors.”

 

[Bonesjones]

Serious question, since I do NOT want to google this, what all did Weisal lie about? I have only read Night, once, before a speaking engagement he was at. I don’t really remember anything from it, it was honestly boring AF.

Most of it, people did a timeline of what he said happened and when and none of it matched up. The "Nazi Death Marches" he complained about was the Nazis telling everyone the Soviets were taking over the camps and they could stay or leave. They weren't forced to go. So again the Nazis get blamed for Communist problems.

My favorite was still Maus though where the jew makes them all rats. No self awareness at all.

 

[mrt6732]

Most of it, people did a timeline of what he said happened and when and none of it matched up. The "Nazi Death Marches" he complained about was the Nazis telling everyone the Soviets were taking over the camps and they could stay or leave. They weren't forced to go. So again the Nazis get blamed for Communist problems.

My favorite was still Maus though where the jew makes them all rats. No self awareness at all.

Wiesel lost quite a bit of his hoax fortune to Madoff, so in a sense there is some justice in this world.

 

[fresh pair of socks]

Serious question, since I do NOT want to google this, what all did Weisal lie about? I have only read Night, once, before a speaking engagement he was at. I don’t really remember anything from it, it was honestly boring AF.

Not trolling, neutral on the subject, just here to learn and debate.

His autobiographies and various accounts contain lies so egregious even his defenders had to acknowledge them.

He claimed he had been in 11 concentration camps.
He lied about witnessing events inside a concentration camp, after people realized he was describing something from a magazine.
He lied about reunion stories of jewish prisoners of war.
He lied about the number of victims, raising the jewish total or lowering the non-jewish total as needed. So the jewish number was always higher.
He lied about his role apprehending Eichmann. He had no role at all.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. He is a totally unreliable source.

 

[Armor of God]

Wiesel is such a straight up liar that even kikes try and downplay his horseshit.

 

[Preacher ✝]

I just want to ask if the affirmers have managed to come up with a convincing cope for the official Red Cross Report (271k, mostly to starvation and disease) or are they still sticking with the same old cope of pressuring the red cross into denouncing itself?

 

[Jack O'Lantern]

Chugger, are you Jewish? Because I can't understand why you're so invested in defending a narrative that has so many holes that if it were a ship it would be residing at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Chugger]

Chugger, are you Jewish? Because I can't understand why you're so invested in defending a narrative that has so many holes that if it were a ship it would be residing at the bottom of the ocean.

My interest is in how people believe in something that is so quite obviously wrong (the belief is : evidence for the Holocaust is weak + lots of counter evidence)

You can look at the post above by @Preacher for an example of this:

Short debunking: no Red Cross records with total camp death tolls exist; the numbers in the deniers' memes are absolutely consistent with the Holocaust since they do not purport to be the total camp or Nazi victim death tolls in the first place nor do they stem from the wartime activities of the Red Cross. Rather, they're numbers of postwar death certificates (such as those issued on request of the few surviving relatives).

Further comments: this one counts as a pretty brazen lie. After all the document refers only to the "beurkundeten Sterbefälle" - i.e. "certified death cases".

See more here: https://holocaustcontroversies.blog...witter-denial-most-popular.html#redcrossstats

So the problem is assuming gaping holes exist or there's strong counter evidence without putting a modicum of effort into investigating these claims.

 

[Bonesjones]

So the problem is assuming gaping holes exist or there's strong counter evidence without putting a modicum of effort into investigating these claims.

Hey look chugger posts his own blog that pushes forged documents in an attempt to prove the Holocaust existed. His link also directly contradicts what he says. Why would the Red Cross take over 30 years to say their numbers don't support what holocaust revisionists say? Wouldn't they say it from the beginning? Just another sad attempt by the holocaust industry in keeping up the lies.

 

[Preacher ✝]

You can look at the post above by @Preacher for an example of this:

So the answer is no, the affirmers have not come up with a convincing cope for the Red Cross numbers as all I am seeing are the same tired old copes. OK.

 

[Chugger]

So the answer is no, the affirmers have not come up with a convincing cope for the Red Cross numbers as all I am seeing are the same tired old copes. OK.

I'll try to explain. Show me the document you think really hurts the Holocaust case.

This one maybe? but you can choose

 

[Preacher ✝]

I'll try to explain. Show me the document you think really hurts the Holocaust case.

This one maybe? but you can choose

I don't read German, and quite frankly I don't care. I had one question and it was answered. Best spend you energy on the people who frequent the thread than a visitor like me.

FWIW no document or numbers figure hurts the Holocaust case more than the sheer unadulterated kikery that Jews have gotten away with by using the Holocaust as both cudgel and a shield politically. Even if it was the full 6mil at this point they don't deserve to have it recognized as such because of how much they've abused the concept for their own gain. They should have taken their unearned ethnostate and been happy but no, they just have to keep pushing it constantly.

 

[Chugger]

I don't read German, and quite frankly I don't care. I had one question and it was answered. Best spend you energy on the people who frequent the thread than a visitor like me.

The only one who left engaging is Bonesjones and his arguments are not substantive, mostly of the baseless accusation variety. Boring for me at this point.

If you have a strong belief about something, like the Red Cross documents are devastating to the Holocaust case you should be able to articulate why, at least to yourself. If you can't do this you are probably believing for the wrong reasons. My reference to arguments made against the Red Cross stuff from another site was not meant to end the argument, but to start it. If they're going wrong, where? If you don't want to answer this, make your own case and I'll respond. But I can't respond to an argument that is totally unsubstantiated.