I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
Holocaust fact finding thread
Author Message
Truth Teller Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 1,821
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 15
Post: #151
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-02-2017 10:17 PM)Valentine Wrote:  You're conflating denialism with revisionism, a strawman which has been illuminated already on this thread.

It's on mainstream Holocaust historians to give sufficient evidence for their hypothesis, that IHR link just details the official narrative being changed multiple times after being challenged.

Historians have proven their case to the satisfaction of 99.9% of fellow professional historians. The IHR hasn't presented a plausible alternative model for the death of roughly nine million people (Jews, Sinti/Roma, mentally disabled, Soviet POWs, etc.). Moreover, as has consistently been shown, "revisionist" understandings of the Holocaust are either straw men or seek to explain away data.

I hate to even use the word "revisionism," because Holocaust revisionism really focused more on intentionalism vs. functionalism in the Holocaust debate.

Again, this is like dealing with creationists. They nitpick the small details and ignore the vast amount of evidence against them.

"For you yourselves are aware that the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" (1 Thess. 5:2)
01-03-2017 01:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Mercenary Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,337
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 66
Post: #152
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 12:54 AM)weambulance Wrote:  
(01-02-2017 11:28 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  To all those who claim gas chambers did not exist or never were used for killing, I really encourage you to go get your ass on a plane and go visit a few death camps museums in eastern Europe like I did. Until you have actually been to these places yourself it is very difficult to imagine both the enormous scale and specific layout of these camps no matter how many years you've been reading about them or how many movies and/or documentaries you've seen.

...snip...

Go to the death camps yourself and then you can talk about what's "logical" and "practical" and what's not.

I accept the facts about the holocaust have been highly manipulated and politicised by many parties, and numbers of those killed by gassing may be exaggerated, but you guys who have never visited a death camp in your lives need to get the fuck out of here with your comfortable armchair conclusions.

These are not arguments. They're basically emotional appeals. You're attempting to disqualify the arguments of people by establishing an arbitrary bar they must meet in order to have a valid voice. Further, your bar is frankly silly. So you went to a death camp and it was big. It does not logically follow that you can divine the purpose of the camps.


This is like saying the virgin who has watched loads of porn and read game blogs his whole life about seducing and sleeping with girls can come on this forum and knows way more about sex and female nature, than the dudes who actually game and bang girls in real life.


There is no better evidence than the real thing/real place itself.
Get on a plane and go visit the death camps and lose your "holocaust virginity".
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 01:12 AM by Mercenary.)
01-03-2017 01:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Truth Teller Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 1,821
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 15
Post: #153
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-02-2017 10:38 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Well, do you really expect there to be peer-reviewed mainstream academic journals questioning the prevailing Holocaust narrative? Why do you think we're discussing this stuff on RVF and not in real life?

This is the exact same argument that creationists/Jesus mythicists/Velikovskyites/etc. use. That is, we can't have these discussions in public because there's an (implied) conspiracy against the idea that it's not that way. Read creationist literature and you'll see the exact same stuff.

I'm a professional historian in my life outside RVF. If someone can convincingly show that the mainstream narrative of something is wrong, he'll guarantee himself a career. If any of the so-called "revisionists" could demonstrate that their account of events is even remotely more plausible, there would be a revolution in Holocaust studies. Similar revolutions have happened in New Testament, history of science, history of ideas, etc.

The evidence conclusively points towards the targeted extermination of European Jewry, which was accomplished through a combination of bullets, labor, gassings, and starvation. "Revisionism" (read: denialism- a distinction without a difference) cannot plausibly account for the vast majority of testimony from both inmates and perpetrators that supports these facts. Therefore, it is forced to find ways to cast aspersion upon it.

If you want to argue that the events of the Holocaust have been (ab)used for the sake of the Jewish people and the state of Israel, then you can go ahead and make that argument. That issue has no bearing on the nature or the fact of the Holocaust.

"For you yourselves are aware that the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" (1 Thess. 5:2)
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 01:17 AM by Truth Teller.)
01-03-2017 01:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Truth Teller's post:
atlant, Gorgiass, Peregrine, MMX2010
atlant Offline
Woodpecker
**
Gold Member

Posts: 485
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 25
Post: #154
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 12:54 AM)weambulance Wrote:  how do you know what the word means now--the common, accepted definition--is what it meant 75 years ago?

Because we have countless examples in literature of that word being used in this sense before the Holocaust happened. Seriously, you're grasping at straws.

Also, and this has been pointed out on previous pages, nobody is basing their entire position on the Holocaust on this small example, including myself, so your claim of a whatever fallacy doesn't hold water. It's merely another drop in the vast ocean of obvious evidence that people like you choose to ignore or explain away with the most absurd mental gymnastics, like in this case.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 01:17 AM by atlant.)
01-03-2017 01:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes atlant's post:
Gorgiass
weambulance Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,072
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 56
Post: #155
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 01:17 AM)atlant Wrote:  
(01-03-2017 12:54 AM)weambulance Wrote:  how do you know what the word means now--the common, accepted definition--is what it meant 75 years ago?

Because we have countless examples in literature of that word being used in this sense before the Holocaust happened. Seriously, you're grasping at straws.

Also, and this has been pointed out on previous pages, nobody is basing their entire position on the Holocaust on this small example, including myself, so your claim of a whatever fallacy doesn't hold water. It's merely another drop in the vast ocean of obvious evidence that people like you choose to ignore or explain away with the most absurd mental gymnastics, like in this case.

Asking a question for the sake of clarification, an entirely logical question in light of the dispute, is neither grasping at straws nor an example of absurd mental gymnastics.

This is how investigation works. This is how science works. Asking "is this really true" and then finding out that yes, it is true, is perfectly fine. And sometimes, it turns out an age-old assumption that forms a brick in the foundation of a commonly held belief is wrong. Thus, examination of the core premises of ideas is valuable.

Normally I would next ask you to demonstrate your case but I simply don't trust you to provide an unbiased account.
01-03-2017 01:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
weambulance Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,072
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 56
Post: #156
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 01:08 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  
(01-03-2017 12:54 AM)weambulance Wrote:  These are not arguments. They're basically emotional appeals. You're attempting to disqualify the arguments of people by establishing an arbitrary bar they must meet in order to have a valid voice. Further, your bar is frankly silly. So you went to a death camp and it was big. It does not logically follow that you can divine the purpose of the camps.

This is like saying the virgin who has watched loads of porn and read game blogs his whole life about seducing and sleeping with girls can come on this forum and knows way more about sex and female nature, than the dudes who actually game and bang girls in real life.

There is no better evidence than the real thing/real place itself.
Get on a plane and go visit the death camps and lose your "holocaust virginity".

This is a spectacularly ridiculous thing to say.

You act as if being in the presence of the camp is the same as witnessing what actually happened there long before any of us were born. You can no more say with certainty what happened in the concentration camps in WWII by visiting them now, 70 years later, than you can give a detailed account of the invasion of Normandy in 1944 by standing on Utah Beach in 2017.

Also, the very first post I made in this thread was a short account of my visit to Dachau as a teenager. So even granting your absolutely absurd false analogy, it doesn't apply to me.
01-03-2017 01:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 7 users Like weambulance's post:
YoungBlade, Geomann180, CaptainChardonnay, MMX2010, SupaDorkLooza, Professor Fox, Charles Martel
nomadbrah Offline
Crow
*****

Posts: 5,387
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 66
Post: #157
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 01:04 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  
(01-02-2017 10:17 PM)Valentine Wrote:  You're conflating denialism with revisionism, a strawman which has been illuminated already on this thread.

It's on mainstream Holocaust historians to give sufficient evidence for their hypothesis, that IHR link just details the official narrative being changed multiple times after being challenged.

Historians have proven their case to the satisfaction of 99.9% of fellow professional historians. The IHR hasn't presented a plausible alternative model for the death of roughly nine million people (Jews, Sinti/Roma, mentally disabled, Soviet POWs, etc.). Moreover, as has consistently been shown, "revisionist" understandings of the Holocaust are either straw men or seek to explain away data.

I hate to even use the word "revisionism," because Holocaust revisionism really focused more on intentionalism vs. functionalism in the Holocaust debate.

Again, this is like dealing with creationists. They nitpick the small details and ignore the vast amount of evidence against them.

Historians have proven it to 99.9% of historians, because if you don't agree then you go to jail.
01-03-2017 01:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 13 users Like nomadbrah's post:
Leonard D Neubache, Geomann180, SirTimothy, brick tamland, Dr. Howard, Mekorig, DJ-Matt, Nevsky, CaptainChardonnay, MMX2010, SupaDorkLooza, Professor Fox, Charles Martel
Truth Teller Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 1,821
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 15
Post: #158
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 01:51 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Historians have proven it to 99.9% of historians, because if you don't agree then you go to jail.

There's no law against Holocaust denialism in the United States. Here come the conspiracy theories.

Historians' opinions are the ones that matter. Generally, if the consensus of relevant professionals holds something to be true, there are good reasons to suppose it to be true.

"For you yourselves are aware that the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" (1 Thess. 5:2)
01-03-2017 01:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
weambulance Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,072
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 56
Post: #159
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 01:57 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  
(01-03-2017 01:51 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Historians have proven it to 99.9% of historians, because if you don't agree then you go to jail.

There's no law against Holocaust denialism in the United States. Here come the conspiracy theories.

Historians' opinions are the ones that matter. Generally, if the consensus of relevant professionals holds something to be true, there are good reasons to suppose it to be true.

There are consequences outside the legal realm.

The consensus of historians has been wrong many times before. It will be wrong again.

And when I start seeing holes in the official story and observe that any historian who starts poking at those holes is ostracized if not outright jailed for his thoughtcrime, I'm not particularly trusting of the consensus anymore.
01-03-2017 02:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 6 users Like weambulance's post:
brick tamland, CaptainChardonnay, Samseau, MMX2010, Charles Martel, RaccoonFace
Leonard D Neubache Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 11,706
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 209
Post: #160
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
So just to be clear, I want to make sure that everyone where who espouses the "99.9% of all experts say..." version is also 99.9% on board with the total gamut of global warming err climate change.

Feel free to sound off one by one.

Assuming of course you're not one of the billions of people that died by the end of 1980 err 1990 err 2000 err 2010 err.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 02:58 AM by Leonard D Neubache.)
01-03-2017 02:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 5 users Like Leonard D Neubache's post:
weambulance, Geomann180, Perfect Stranger, MMX2010, Charles Martel
Wreckingball Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,306
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 8
Post: #161
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-02-2017 06:44 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  IHR is not a reputable academic source any more than something like ICR (Institute for Creation Research) is. Holocaust denial and creationism are equivalent in the lack of evidence, special pleading, and incoherence of the theories.

When you can't explain the data, as denialism can't, then you have to find a way to explain it away.

Please, read the whole thread before writing fluff. All of your points have already been addressed at least twice.
It's not denialism. Is questioning the veracity of questionable facts of a story that is widely known yet is illegal to question in some European countries. Of a mass murdering of a huge number of persons, yet some of the evidence presented/known is doctored or contradictive. You don't need to doctor evidence for mass murdering. It should be blatant and not contradicting.
You can deny creationism in 2016 and not go to jail. You cannot QUESTION any of the facts surrounding the holocaust. The death and suffering is not being questioned. The numbers and methods used are. (which Scorpion, I, and some others, believe it was used to wash way crimes from the winning sides and further push propaganda).


"Believers" cannot also explain, congruently, the data and the number 6 million (which apparently never keeps on changing even though the number of victims at Auschwitz goes from 4.5 million to 1.5 million in a couple decades).
IHR is not a reputable academic source but is combining several credible sources that do contradict each other, constantly. If you notice, each article has several sources, that you can use google scholar to read them.

Some of us do not like to blindly accept dogmas, much less being told that stories cannot be questioned cause we could go to jail. Sounds a lot like the inquisition.

I for instance already learned a lot with this thread and I thank the ones that contributed to it.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 05:45 AM by Wreckingball.)
01-03-2017 05:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Wreckingball's post:
Leonard D Neubache, Genghis Khan, MMX2010
Mercenary Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,337
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 66
Post: #162
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 01:39 AM)weambulance Wrote:  Also, the very first post I made in this thread was a short account of my visit to Dachau as a teenager. So even granting your absolutely absurd false analogy, it doesn't apply to me.

Dachau is a concentration camp. It is not an exermination (death) camp.
They are 2 different things, as per the map I put on the previous page.

I would be sceptical of any person on any subject, that had not at least seen and/or visited in person, the things and places he claims to know something about.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 06:19 AM by Mercenary.)
01-03-2017 06:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
weambulance Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,072
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 56
Post: #163
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 06:15 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  
(01-03-2017 01:39 AM)weambulance Wrote:  Also, the very first post I made in this thread was a short account of my visit to Dachau as a teenager. So even granting your absolutely absurd false analogy, it doesn't apply to me.

Dachau is a concentration camp. It is not an exermination (death) camp.
They are 2 different things, as per the map I put on the previous page.

I would be sceptical of any person on any subject, that had not at least seen and/or visited in person, the things and places he claims to know something about.

Whatever. I notice you failed to address the gaping logic holes in your original argument, preferring to nitpick. This line of discussion is obviously going nowhere.

Good luck getting through life relying entirely on eyewitness accounts.
01-03-2017 06:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes weambulance's post:
Charles Martel
Leonard D Neubache Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 11,706
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 209
Post: #164
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 06:15 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  ...
I would be sceptical of any person on any subject, that had not at least seen and/or visited in person, the things and places he claims to know something about.

How does this work exactly?

Considering the question in play here, how does stepping into Auschwitz allow you to better intuit whether 1.5 million people died there or 4.5? How does it allow you to better understand whether they were gassed with Zyklon or by tank exhaust? How does it better allow you to know how many died of starvation or disease or exposure or gunfire versus how many died in the chambers?

I've got nothing against you personally, Mercenary, but this is the cheapest kind of end-run on an argument. "You're not qualified to talk about it because (arbitrary mystical exclusionary principle)."

It sits there with "you're not qualified to speak on race relations if you're white".
"You're not qualified to talk about women's spirituality if you're a man".
01-03-2017 07:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 15 users Like Leonard D Neubache's post:
rotekz, Genghis Khan, YoungBlade, brick tamland, Dr. Howard, Xntrik, DJ-Matt, iop890, Nevsky, CaptainChardonnay, Yurtley, MMX2010, SupaDorkLooza, Professor Fox, Charles Martel
Parzival Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 1,761
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 33
Post: #165
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
I was in Dachau as well. I got told many of the stuff got rebuild from the guide. He said, they want to make it look more scary.

We will stand tall in the sunshine
With the truth upon our side
And if we have to go alone
We'll go alone with pride


For us, these conflicts can be resolved by appeal to the deeply ingrained higher principle embodied in the law, that individuals have the right (within defined limits) to choose how to live. But this Western notion of individualism and tolerance is by no means a conception in all cultures. - Theodore Dalrymple
01-03-2017 08:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 6 users Like Parzival's post:
Geomann180, YoungBlade, Leonard D Neubache, Samseau, MMX2010, storm
Geomann180 Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,838
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 57
Post: #166
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 02:55 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  So just to be clear, I want to make sure that everyone where who espouses the "99.9% of all experts say..." version is also 99.9% on board with the total gamut of global warming err climate change.

Feel free to sound off one by one.

Assuming of course you're not one of the billions of people that died by the end of 1980 err 1990 err 2000 err 2010 err.

Don't forget to mention they believe mainstream media advice on how to seduce and sleep with women.

Not a single person has come to this forum, seeking to better themselves with women or other areas of life, due to mislead advice from leading experts in the last 60 or so years, ever.

(01-03-2017 08:19 AM)Parzival Wrote:  I was in Dachau as well. I got told many of the stuff got rebuild from the guide. He said, they want to make it look more scary.

That's a pretty clear example of a behind the scenes agenda at work, in the presentation of the camps.

G
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 08:27 AM by Geomann180.)
01-03-2017 08:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Geomann180's post:
YoungBlade, Leonard D Neubache
weambulance Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,072
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 56
Post: #167
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
All I remember being told about Dachau when I was there is that the ovens were built, but not used. Maybe they meant they weren't used to dispose of people who were explicitly murdered, but just to get rid of diseased bodies. I dunno. Long time ago.

[Image: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H26996%2C_KZ_Dacha...gsofen.jpg]

[Image: crematorium01.jpg]

Staged photos taken at Dachau once the people were liberated, representing using the ovens.

From Time magazine:

Quote:Outside one building, half covered by a brown tarpaulin, was a stack about five feet high and about 20 feet wide of naked dead bodies, all of them emaciated. We went on around this building and came to the central crematory. The rooms here, in order, were: 1) the office where the living and the dead were passed through and where all their clothing was stripped from them; 2) the Brausebad (shower) room, where the victims were gassed; and 3) the crematory. In the crematory were two large furnaces. Before the two furnaces were hooks and pulleys on rafters above them. Here, according to a number of Frenchmen, the SS men often hanged prisoners by the necks or by the thumbs or whatever their fancy dictated. From here the victims could watch while being whipped and tortured as their comrades were slid into the furnace.

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/...-1,00.html

The article was published in May, 1945, and based on information from war correspondent Sidney Olson.

Actually, those pullies are used to open the inner set of doors in the ovens. You can see the door plates hanging above the brickwork.

[Image: dachauc060.jpg]

Image from here: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/...-of-doors/

[Image: giphy.gif]
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 08:49 AM by weambulance.)
01-03-2017 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like weambulance's post:
YoungBlade, Leonard D Neubache
Gorgiass Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 797
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 15
Post: #168
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-02-2017 08:51 AM)scorpion Wrote:  The above is a bunch of complete nonsense intended to come across as a scientific rebuttal. Are you an expert on chemistry and/or the biological interactions of respirated gas inside the human body? Oh, no. But you "know your way around an engine." And this somehow makes you qualified to handwave away a detailed 17 page analysis in a few paragraphs? What Gorgiass cannot refute is that we have eyewitness testimony telling us that hundreds of victims were alive in a small gas chamber for over three hours (which is impossible, they would have asphyxiated long before). Why does this matter? Because this testimony forms the basis of the entire gas chamber mythology. And its patently impossible on its surface. Full stop. So is witness testimony invalid in this case when it clearly suggests something impossible happened? If so, why is witness testimony suddenly 100% reliable in other cases? Or better still: why is witness testimony entirely contradictory much of the time? (i.e. wearing gas masks or no gas masks). There is simply no consistency in regards to the eyewitness accounts of the alleged gas chambers, which is a huge red flag.

Unbelievable. It appears you haven't even read your own link. I'll repost what it says, verbatim -

From your own source:
IHR.org= Wrote:It was not a peephole through which Prof. Pfannenstiel supposedly looked into the gas chamber-it was a window. And it was a window in a wooden door-not a steel, gas-tight door as one might expect. Apparently, there were wooden doors on two sides of at least one of the gas chambers. We are told that the intended victims were still alive after almost three hours in the gas chambers before the Diesel even started. Surely, there must have been many air leaks into the chambers or else the Jews would have been asphyxiated without the aid of any Diesel.

Here's what you yourself had to say about wooden doors before (although in the previous instance you were mistaken about that door being wooden at all)

(12-31-2016 08:00 PM)scorpion Wrote:  This is a homicidal gas chamber. Notice a difference? (Hint: Not quite the airtight seal I'd be looking for on that wooden door at Majdanek if I was going to be murdering hundreds of people inside with enormous concentrations of poison gas - and yes, that is the original door).

The page you posted is dealing with diesel exhaust gassing. Here is the difference between Zyklon B and CO/CO2 gassing (that neither you, nor IHR seem to grasp) - if you DO have air leaks in a Zyklon gas chamber it will reduce the gas efficacy by diluting the poison. If you DON'T have air leaks in a CO/CO2 gas chamber the engine won't be able to vent into the chamber in the first place and will stall! Did you ever put a potato over a tailpipe as a kid? Same idea.

This is why Jews in a chamber designed for CO/CO2 gassings could survive indefinitely, because if air WASN'T able to get in a chamber designed for exhaust poisoning, the engine wouldn't even be able to run! There's no grand conspiracy here, just basic common sense. As soon as the engine starts up and begins to pump 1000+CFM of ehaust into the room, every air leak becomes a vent, rather than an inlet - just to reiterate what I wrote before since it seems no one reads it...

Your own link says that Diesel exhaust, in an engine which hasn't even been tuned to increase toxic hydrocarbon byproducts contains up to 12% CO2 by volume. Every piece of scientific literature in the world will tell you that even levels of CO2 approaching 10% are fatal -without factoring in the additional toxic compounds.

(01-02-2017 08:51 AM)scorpion Wrote:  The above is a bunch of complete nonsense intended to come across as a scientific rebuttal. Are you an expert on chemistry and/or the biological interactions of respirated gas inside the human body?

No, and it's crystal clear that you aren't either, but I'm pretty sure the folks over at NCBI are:

Quote:At higher concentrations it [CO2] leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16499405

And this is pure CO2 in air, again, without the added CO and other toxic components of diesel exhaust. The fact that you are even arguing this point, after it's been repeatedly laid out in black and white makes clear your interest in these issues is not truth, not by a long shot.
01-03-2017 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Gorgiass's post:
HighSpeed_LowDrag, Hotwheels, Teedub
HighSpeed_LowDrag Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,888
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 57
Post: #169
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 05:33 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  "Believers" cannot also explain, congruently, the data and the number 6 million (which apparently never keeps on changing even though the number of victims at Auschwitz goes from 4.5 million to 1.5 million in a couple decades).

This is easily explainable. The "4 million dead at Auschwitz" plaque was regarded from the beginning by Western historians as Soviet propaganda. It never figured into serious calculations of Jews killed during the Holocaust. As early as 1950, Raul Hilberg was saying that no more than 1.1 - 1.3 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz.

HSLD
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 12:31 PM by HighSpeed_LowDrag.)
01-03-2017 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like HighSpeed_LowDrag's post:
Truth Teller, Teedub
weambulance Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,072
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 56
Post: #170
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
It's plausible you could kill people by sticking them in a room and using diesel exhaust, sure.

It's not likely CO would be the killer in that situation.

It's plausible that such a jury-rigged system might be thought up, given very limited supplies. One or two examples of such a rig would be plausible.

There are two distinct claims that I have a problem with here, though:

1) CO is uniformly claimed as the killing agent in these exhaust (not poison) gas chambers and vans. The bodies, however, are described as "blue". CO poisoning makes people look very red, not blue. Blue is cyanosis due to asphyxia (in this context).

2) CO gas poisoning from diesel engines as a standard method used at many locations is implausible. There are just so many more efficient ways of doing it, and diesel fuel is a strategic resource in war.

If diesel engines were used to kill with CO2, the people in the rooms would've been frantic. Do you know why you start to freak out if you're holding your breath underwater and can't get air? It's because CO2 is building up in your body. The human body doesn't sense a lack of oxygen and decide to breathe, it senses a surplus of CO2. That's why you can die without ever realizing something's wrong if you screw around with nitrogen in an enclosed space. Your body never knows the oxygen is missing.

Now, maybe we can talk about why eyewitnesses claimed the people in the gas chambers just died peacefully if CO2 was the cause, but that's not even my point. My point is if CO2 poisoning was the actual cause of death, not CO, it would've been an obviously cruel death for every single one of them. Thus, the Nazis would clearly not have cared about killing the prisoners cruelly.

So why not use steam? Just as an example. Plenty of wood around, plus they had plenty of coke for the crematoria. Was water hard to come by, especially nonpotable water? I doubt it. So why not use steam? Boilers would've been easy to come by, as they were commonly used for household heating for 50+ years by the 1930s.

If you flood a room full of people with pressurized steam, they're all toast in about a minute. It would be horrifyingly painful, but so quick it would probably be more humane than slowly killing them with CO2, letting them go nuts from the panic reaction, each feeding off the hysteria of the rest, the strong trampling the elderly and the young while trying to escape...

Or why not use simple asphyxiation? Seal the place well enough, lower the ceiling to 78 inches to minimize air volume, cram them in and bar the door shut. Why waste a bunch of diesel on your Rube Goldberg execution chamber when you can let them suffocate without wasting anything?

I can come up with many other alternatives that do not rely on jury-rigged systems that consume strategic fuels, even granting the premise that shooting the victims would be too traumatizing for the guards, which I frankly do not find a persuasive argument in the first place.

See, I'm fine with admitting that governments do dumb shit sometimes. Sometimes they even do systematically dumb shit (okay, pretty often). But I find it very hard to believe that in Nazi Germany, the country that created one of the finest war machines in the history of mankind, they relied on a jury-rigged, inefficient system as the standard method of committing mass murder over a period of years and nobody came up with a better, much less wasteful way of doing it. Especially once the liquid fuel shortages started later in the war.

Maybe some high ranking Nazi owned a diesel distribution company and just wanted to boost sales by mandating the diesel exhaust gas chamber execution method, eh?

----

I wrote that over an hour ago and now I'm reading through various sites online. No doubt my analysis will seem familiar, seeing how so many "deniers" online came to the same conclusions I did.

Except I didn't read what they had to say first. I worked from the sources used to construct the official story and used my own knowledge, along with some googling to make sure I was right about certain details, to reach those conclusions.

My assumption for many years--until a few days ago--was the victims in the gas chambers didn't know they were going to die. I thought it was something like "Hey you stinky buggers, time for a shower!" and whoops, out came the poison gas. I figured maybe 15-30 people in one of those shower rooms, because it's obviously ridiculous to think cramming people into a room, one per square foot, would allow for much cleaning.

But none of these accounts I'm reading support that idea. And now that I'm actually reading what the "eyewitnesses" had to say about it, it's obvious that there are big fat holes in the official story. What I'm reading is, at the very least, wildly embellished to make the Germans look like Really Bad Guys. There sure are lots of stories of SS dudes stomping babies to death in front of their mothers. And these are the guys who were supposed to go crazy from shooting their victims?

I would've thought rounding people up, stripping them of their property, and sticking them in concentration camps was bad enough. I certainly do not consider the contemporary internment camps in the US any kind of shining moment in our history. And if we'd been invaded and were losing the war, I doubt anyone would've made those camps a high priority for supplies and care. It's likely loads of them would've died like the victims did in the Nazi camps.

So why was it so important that the Nazis be painted as the evillest people in human history, and for all time?
01-03-2017 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 7 users Like weambulance's post:
rotekz, Leonard D Neubache, Yurtley, MMX2010, SupaDorkLooza, Charles Martel, brick tamland
weambulance Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,072
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 56
Post: #171
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
To roll back to the argument over "Ausrottung" and derivatives, specifically whether it means "to exterminate" all day every day and always has, here are two blog posts from some dude who does speak German.

Much formatting will be lost, unfortunately, so it would be better to read the originals at his site.

The cliffnotes version is yes, there are historical examples of "Ausrottung" meaning something other than "to exterminate" or "to stomp out". I'm shocked.

https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpres...streicher/
Quote:Just like Vernichtung, Ausrottung has a long history of non-homicidal use. In the Luther Bible translation of Genesis 17.14, it is commanded that the uncircumcised be ausgerottet, with the meaning that they be removed from the people, or exiled. In 1816, an author going by the name of Fürchtegott Leberecht Christlieb considered Ob wir die Juden ausrotten sollen (whether we should ausrotten the Jews) – a question which he answered in the negative. He stated that an Ausrottung could be achieved in either of two ways. The first, harder way was to round up the Jews and kill them all – a possibility which he expressed with the highly explicit verbs niederschießen, totschlagen, and ersaufen. The second, milder way was to round up the Jews, take them to the border, drive them across it and force back any who dared to return.[59] In short, his milder form of Ausrottung was simply forcible expulsion. While Christlieb rejected even this milder form of Ausrottung, dwelling on the suffering it would cause, he understood that Ausrottung does not imply killing, and that expulsion is a form of Ausrottung.

Nor was it only authors who, like Christlieb, opposed harsh measures against the Jews that understood Ausrottung as including expulsion. Writers who opposed the Jews in the strongest of terms also distinguished between Ausrottung and killing. For example, Hartwig von Hundt-Radowsky, author of Judenspiegel, whose final chapter Betrachtungen über Verbesserung, Ausrottung und Vertreibung der Juden ultimately advises (despite its aggressive rhetoric) against killing the Jews, lays out a plan whereby Napoleon Bonaparte should return from Saint Helena, become King of the Jews, and lead them (armed with 1000 canons and transported to Palestine) in war against the Turks, in which campaign with any luck they would be vertilgt, although plainly Hundt-Radowsky did not envision the realization of this hope, as he set out observations on and plans for Napoleon’s future Jewish Reich.[60] Despite his strongly anti-Jewish position, Hundt-Radowsky used the word Ausrottung in a sense that did not imply killing.[61] One can also find Ausrottung used non-homicidally in late 19th century authors critical of the Jews.[62] Ausmerzung, also used by Rosenberg, found similar usage.[63] Jewish organizations spoke of Ausrottung already in the 1930s, just as they spoke of Vernichtung. This can be seen in the book Der Gelbe Fleck, whose subtitle spoke of the Ausrottung of 500,000 German Jews,[64] and in the words attributed to a 1936 speech of Julius Streicher.[65] Compounds with Ausrottung can also take a range of meanings . For example, in Mein Kampf Hitler mentions that the SA was accused by political opponents of waging an Ausrottungskrieg against the “peaceful workers”.[66] Clearly this did not mean that the SA was accused of having started killing off all the German workers. It does, however, show how easily words like Ausrottung can be used when employing a language of conflict. Such language was part and parcel of typical NSDAP rhetoric, likely having its source partly in the party’s origins in street politics, as well as the long tradition of usages of words like Vernichtung and Ausrottung already alluded to. Given the usages listed above, it’s easy to see why the US Government official Landreth M. Harrison understood that Ausrottung need not mean killing, and believed that Jewish reports of mass gassing could have derived from their mistranslations of such words.[67]

Returning to Alfred Rosenberg, whose words offered Harrison an opportunity to theorize about Hitler’s supposed decision to kill all the Jews, we know that while Rosenberg was quite ready to discuss the reality of anti-Jewish measures, he was unaware of an extermination in the sense in which Harrison believes it occurred. In a postwar interrogation, he stated that

"I would assume that in such a gigantic struggle there would be many victims but I still don’t believe this part where you allege to prove that deliberate mass extermination was practiced in this manner. I did, of course, know that in connection with our struggle there were many executions. I did not know anything about mass extermination to the extent and in the manner as you say."[68]

During the IMT, Rosenberg maintained this position and – with reference to the very document on which Harrison grounded his belief in an extermination decision – made a creditable attempt to explain “the various meanings ‘Ausrottung’ may have in the German language”, though his sincere explanation made little impact in the face of the deliberate thickheadedness of his interlocutor.[69] Nor was Rosenberg the only defendant at the IMT to address this question. Julius Streicher also explained at the IMT that the interpretation of Vernichtung and Ausrottung depends on the context, and that the words do not necessarily mean killing.[70]

Rosenberg’s diary, rediscovered in 2013, fully confirms his postwar statements. As the holocaust establishment was forced to admit, the diary contains no reference whatsoever to a German plan or practice of killing off all the Jews.[71] Rosenberg did not hesitate to record a meeting concerned with specific killings of Jews by the Lithuanians,[72] and also felt free to allude to his frustration at opposition to the euthanasia program from the Churches.[73] Despite this openness, he says nothing about the supposed extermination of the Jews. Furthermore, Rosenberg mentions a proposal that would have put Ukrainians on the same level as Jews and Gypsies.[74] According to the interpretations of holocaust controversies, this means that there was a German proposal to exterminate the Ukrainians. Does Harrison believe that such a proposal existed, and if not how does he explain this diary entry?

—–

[59] Fürchtegott Leberecht Christlieb (pseud?), Warum versagt ihr den Juden das Bürgerrecht, in: Ueber das Judenthum und die Juden: Drei Abhandlungen, in: Heinrich Luden (ed). Nemesis: Zeitschrift für Politik und Geschichte. Vol. 8, No. 1, Weimar, 1816, here p. 64.
[60] Hartwig von Hundt-Radowsky, Judenspiegel: Ein Schand- und Sittengemälde alter und neuer Zeit, 1819, p. 146. There is a strong element of humor in Hundt-Radowsky’s plans, though this has been missed by most scholarly commentators.
[61] This has been acknowledged even by Paul Lawrence Rose, who writes from a position of intense Jewish partisanship. See that author’s Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany from Kant to Wagner, 1990, p. 33, fn. 25.
[62] Christoph Cobet, Der Wordschatz des Antisemitismus in der Bismarckzeit, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München, 1973, p. 213. In a footnote, Cobet correctly explains that the use of Ausrottung in the quoted excerpt does not mean killing.
[63] Christoph Cobet, Der Wordschatz des Antisemitismus in der Bismarckzeit, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München, 1973, p. 212. In a footnote, Cobet notes the agricultural origins of the word, and observes that it has a long history of being applied to humans.
[64] Der Gelbe Fleck: Die Ausrottung von 500,000 deutschen Juden, Editions du Carrefour, 1936. Authorship or editorship of this work is often credited to Lion Feuchtwanger. In fact, he merely wrote a one-page foreword from whose text it is clear that he had no such role. In his foreword he stated that the persecution of the Jews, which he characterized as the systematic Vernichtung of half a million ‘highly civilized Europeans’, was certainly less atrocious than other things that were happening in Germany. Neither the reference to Ausrottung in the title, nor the Vernichtung in Feuchtwanger’s foreword, referred to the killing of all these Jews.
[65] Dokumentensammlung über die Entrechtung, Ächtung und Vernichtung der Juden in Deutschland seit der Regierung Adolf Hitler, 1936, p. 23.
[66] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Munich, 1936, p. 616.
[67] Records of the War Refugee Board, 1944-1945. Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library & Museum. Box 64: Jews in Europe (1), July-August 1944.
[68] Rosenberg interrogation, 5.11.45, US Government microfilm publication M1270, roll 17.
[69] Rosenberg testimony, 17.4.46, IMT Vol. XI, pp. 554.
[70] IMT, Vol. XII, pp. 357-378.
[71] Richard A. Widmann, No Smoking Gun, No Silver Bullets: The Real News of Rosenberg’s Diary, Inconvenient History, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2014.
[72] Rosenberg diary, 3.7.42.
[73] Rosenberg diary, 14.12.41.
[74] Rosenberg diary, 9.10.42.

https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpres...usrottung/
Quote:My recent discussion of Ausrottung has provoked a series of hasty and unthinking replies from the bloggers of holocaust controversies, none of which do much to touch the arguments made. The bloggers seem to be employing a style of “throw shit at the wall and see what sticks” – that is, they quickly post any objection which occurs to them without any attempt to think things through, just so as to be able to say that they had responded. Harrison had already set this pattern of replies with his total inability to comprehend my arguments regarding the November 15 steam chamber report. While this strategy may succeed in creating a diversion, it ultimately only causes the bloggers to humiliate themselves further with their ill-thought replies. In this post I will reply to several of their arguments, and will also introduce some additional examples in which ausrotten is used with a rather broad meaning.

The meaning of Genesis 17.14 and other occurrences of ausrotten in the Luther bible

Roberto Muehlenkamp contests my reading of Genesis 17.14, which is rendered with ausrotten in the Luther bible. I had stated that

In the Luther Bible translation of Genesis 17.14, it is commanded that the uncircumcised be ausgerottet, with the meaning that they be removed from the people, or exiled.

He appeals to a dictionary which lists this passage as meaning killing. Yet appeals to dictionaries are no way to settle the meaning of a passage. The question is, what does the verse actually mean? In English translations of Genesis 17.14, what the Luther bible renders as “ausgerottet aus seinem Volk” is generally rendered as “cut of from his people”. For example, in the ESV the verse is rendered

Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

What does “cut off” mean? Does it mean killing? No, at least not directly. First of all, it makes little sense to say that someone will be “killed from his people”. The element of “from” the people conflicts with the meaning of killing. Second, we can examine other passages regarding being “cut off” from the people – which are also translated with ausrotten. Take Leviticus 20 in English and German. Here, the punishment of being put to death is contrasted with the punishment of being cut off [ausgerottet] from your people. Adultery with another man’s wife gets you (and her) put to death, while sex with a menstruating woman and “uncovering her nakedness” only gets you (and her) cut off from your people. Giving your children to Molech gets you death, but if the people should fail to kill you God will cut you off from the people. Being cut off from the people is a different punishment from death. In its most literal and natural interpretation, it means being deprived of membership in the people, and of all the attendant benefits. As I said, this is removal from the people. My use of the word “exile” is perhaps a slight over-interpretation, as it gives particular emphasis to the territorial aspect of having your status as a member of a people removed, but this is a subtle distinction. The point is that being cut off from the people does not, in itself, mean being killed.

There are further such passages in, for instance, Leviticus 7 and 19. For the sake of completeness, I should mention that these mention being ausgerottet von your people rather than aus. Also, one of the passages in Leviticus 20 had vor: Die sollen ausgerottet werden vor den Leuten ihres Volks.

Finally, what Muehlenkamp calls my “self-serving interpretation” (that this passage does not imply killing) is in fact by no means original to me, but is quite common in the literature, as Muehlenkamp would have discovered had he done any actual research.

Incidentally, it’s not only the Luther bible that uses “ausrotten” in this context. Moses Mendelssohn’s translation uses “ausrotten” here as well.

Two more examples of ausrotten being used in a broader sense

In my previous discussion of Ausrottung, I gave a number of examples of the word’s non-homicidal use, including a particularly explicit one from “Fürchtegott Leberecht Christlieb”. That particular passage is so explicit in stating that an expulsion counts as an Ausrottung that we can expect Muehlenkamp and Harrison to continue to ignore it, as it is so clear in its meaning that they will not be able to creatively misinterpret it. While we wait for them to address this most explicit of examples, here are two more cases of ausrotten being used with respect to Jews, in a sense broader than that which the bloggers attach to it.

In an 1806 letter quoted in the 1912 book “Die Emanzipation der Juden in Preußen” by Ismar Freund (vol. 1, p. 111), the Prussian reformer Friedrich von Schrötter wrote, speaking of the Jews (“diese ungluckliche Menschenrasse”) “Ausrotten läßt sie sich nicht, aber einschränken und bessern”. Was it really just the possibility of killing all the Jews which he rejected? No. The meaning of the rejected Ausrottung is clearly broader than this, and encompasses any sort of project designed to eliminate the Jewish population.

The second example comes from the book Preußen in seinen religiösen Verhältnissen. In addressing the Jewish question, the author states that there were only two possibilities: to educate the Jews, or to violently ausrotten them. What did the author mean by violent Ausrottung? This becomes clear by the continuation: the author states that a violent Ausrottung seems to him wrong, because “[the Jews] are, after all, residents of the land, and have a right to continue to live in the land in which were born”. That is to say, an Ausrottung simply consists of denying the Jews the ability to continue to live in a given land. Hence the author’s insistence that there are precisely two possibilities. Those are: either the Jews will continue to live in our land or they will not. If they do continue to live in our land, we must educate them so as to make them less of a menace. Getting rid of them would require force (the Jews being unwilling to leave voluntarily) which the author found morally unacceptable. Indeed, as he sums up his position:

1) Es wäre zu wünschen, wir hätten gar keine Juden im Lande.
2) Die wir einmal haben, müssen wir dulden, aber unablässig bemüht sein, sie möglichst unschädlich zu machen.

The two possibilities are either to make the land Judenfrei, or to continue to live with the Jews. The former possibility would require an Ausrottung – rooting out the Jews – and while the author recognizes that the absence of Jews would be desirable he rejects such an action on moral grounds. Again, ausrotten has been used in the sense of the removal of a population, independent of the means employed in that removal, and without implying killing.

What about National Socialist usages of ausrotten?

Jonathan Harrison quotes Peter Longerich to the effect that while Ausrottung applied to groups of people need not mean killing in general, it does always mean killing when used by National Socialists. This claim ignores some rather blatant counterexamples. In his January 30, 1942 speech at the Berlin Sportpalast, Hitler characterized the war as having two possible outcomes, one of which was that the European peoples would be ausgerottet. He expressed the same idea in other speeches as well – that the war was a choice between the Ausrottung of the Jews or the Aryans. At Nuremberg, Alfred Rosenberg confirmed that statements like this did not mean a general slaughter:

this word [Ausrottung] has been used with respect to the German people and we have also not believed that in consequence thereof 60 millions of Germans would be shot.

Thus, the National Socialist use of “Ausrottung” has a broader set of meanings than Harrison or Muehlenkamp – or Longerich – would like to believe.

Rosenberg’s diary

As I have explained, Alfred Rosenberg’s diary fully confirms his postwar statements to he effect that he knew nothing of an extermination of the Jews in the sense which allegedly occurred. Without acknowledging this fact, Jonathan Harrison has taken exception to one particular observation which I made regarding Rosenberg’s diary. In reply to my mention of Rosenberg’s diary entry discussing the proposal to put the Ukrainians on the same legal footing with the Jews and Gypsies, Harrison claims that I have “misinterpreted” the entry. In fact, I did not offer any interpretation. I only stated that according to the interpretations of holocaust controversies, this would mean a proposal of extermination. If the policy towards the Jews was “kill them all” then putting the Ukrainians on the same legal footing would mean “your position before the court is a bullet through the skull – for every Ukrainian.” Obviously that is not what was proposed. Harrison tries to get around this by claiming that the inclusion of the Jews is “moot” because he believes they were already dead. This simply begs the question; i.e. Harrison assumes his own desired conclusion. Rosenberg evidently did not consider the inclusion of the Jews moot, because, well, he included them. Despite his well-known sympathy for the Ukrainian cause, Rosenberg did not respond with shock at the idea of putting Ukrainians on the same legal footing as a Jewish population that (allegedly) had already been killed off, but simply with strong disapproval and the sentiment that such a policy would worsen German-Ukrainian relations. This indicates that the Jews’ legal standing, while not very good, was not simply that of being subject to a policy of extermination.

Harrison also notes Rosenberg’s other uses of ausrotten, which completely misses the point again, namely that ausrotten has a range of meanings, so that its meaning is not confined to the narrow sense to which Harrison wishes to limit it, and therefore its usage cannot be used to deduce a Nazi policy of killing the Jews.

(A side issue: does Harrison even read German? In the manifesto he generally relies on other authors’ translations – sometimes their mistranslations – even when he claims to have used an original German source. And by “read German” I don’t mean “type stuff into Google translate” – the way that Nick Terry seems to “read Polish”, although as I showed in my discussion of Terry’s error concerning the “Rabinowicz” document, sometimes he doesn’t even bother to do that.)
01-03-2017 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes weambulance's post:
Charles Martel
brick tamland Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 686
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 4
Post: #172
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
Let's say I've heard about something called The Holocaust, and every time I've heard about it, it's been said that 6 million Jews were killed in a genocide. So one day I decide to find a list of the 6 million deceased, in particular the NAMES of the deceased, and WHERE they died.
But over 70 years later a search shows that there are only estimates of the number of dead. There is neither a single commonly accepted list of the number of dead Jews, nor a single commonly accepted list of names of the deceased.
01-03-2017 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes brick tamland's post:
Leonard D Neubache
Dr. Howard Away
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,118
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 76
Post: #173
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 07:10 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  
(01-03-2017 06:15 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  ...
I would be sceptical of any person on any subject, that had not at least seen and/or visited in person, the things and places he claims to know something about.

How does this work exactly?

Considering the question in play here, how does stepping into Auschwitz allow you to better intuit whether 1.5 million people died there or 4.5? How does it allow you to better understand whether they were gassed with Zyklon or by tank exhaust? How does it better allow you to know how many died of starvation or disease or exposure or gunfire versus how many died in the chambers?

I've got nothing against you personally, Mercenary, but this is the cheapest kind of end-run on an argument. "You're not qualified to talk about it because (arbitrary mystical exclusionary principle)."

It sits there with "you're not qualified to speak on race relations if you're white".
"You're not qualified to talk about women's spirituality if you're a man".

This is a good example of separating emotion from reason or mathematics. Let me provide another example in history where people assumed that because they 'saw' something and had an emotional reaction they were experts.

Some of you may remember the 1990s pearl clutching over clearcutting. The environmentalists would show these pictures of logged over areas and claim that the forests of north america were being wiped out etc. The visual representation of a clearcut looks ugly.

omg the devastation.
[Image: Bugaboo_Creek_Clearcut.jpg]

visiting a clearcut also gives you a sense of their size, and they can get quite large, especially in northern Canada. Standing in the middle of one, where you see the moonscape of tree stumps almost to the horizon gives people this feeling of "we are cutting down the entire forest"

here is the problem though, clearcuts are large, but the actual amount of standing forests are even larger. Canada's deforestation over the span of something like 30 years was like a third, of a third of a percent, and America's forests actually increased in coverage over the same time period.

People can't grasp scale and large numbers intuitively. Looking at a beach of sand, a person can't guess if there are 10 billion or 20 billion grains, they just know there are 'a lot'

Thats why its probably better for someone to do holocaust math without ever seeing a death camp, or concentration camp. Sure, a lot of big crematoriums may give the impression that nazis could burn a lot of bodies in a day, but does it mean they could burn thousands? millions? in a short matter of years?

Personally, I think historians, site visitors and other subjective 'experts' are not needed to answer the question of 'how many bodies were burned in crematoriums' or 'how many people died in gas chambers'. Its simply an engineering discussion.

I wouldn't ask a historian to tell me how many production lines I'd need to produce 1 million cars per year at my factory so I don't think I'd ask one to tell me the feasibility of a mass crematory operation either.

Isn't it easy math? What was the production capacity of 1 creamatorium (which weambulance was trying to estimate)? How many crematoriums were there per camp? How many years did they operate for? X= the maximum crematory output. Same thing for the gas chambers.

The emotional input doesn't help.

The "consensus of experts" doesn't help either. Just ask Hillary Clinton and CNN how a consensus of experts helped her lose.

Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? Psalm 2:1 KJV
01-03-2017 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 17 users Like Dr. Howard's post:
rotekz, weambulance, estraudi, roberto, iop890, Once Was Not, Perfect Stranger, Hotwheels, CaptainChardonnay, Leonard D Neubache, Yurtley, Samseau, SvenTuga, MMX2010, SupaDorkLooza, Professor Fox, Charles Martel
Kona Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 5,492
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 144
Post: #174
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
(01-03-2017 08:19 AM)Parzival Wrote:  I was in Dachau as well. I got told many of the stuff got rebuild from the guide. He said, they want to make it look more scary.

I was gonna say this exact same thing. I just didn't want to get in the way of all the science going around here.

I too went to Dachau. I was a lot younger, and probably shitfaced, but I remember being told the exact same thing.

I'm not at all saying bad shit didn't happen, but two of the personal situations I've seen have been farces.

Its just odd. Earlier I talked about the fake holocost professor I met. I have been really looking around the internet the last few days, and I can't find any articles at all about it. Its like they are gone. Just strange.

Aloha!
01-03-2017 03:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 10 users Like Kona's post:
weambulance, debeguiled, nomadbrah, SirTimothy, Leonard D Neubache, MiscBrah, Saccade, Samseau, MMX2010, Professor Fox
captndonk Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 269
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 3
Post: #175
RE: Holocaust fact finding thread
I am pretty sure this Himmler speech is an original and he talks about exterminating (=killing) the jews. And I also think that there is consensus that large numbers of innocent people were killed by the nazis. There are a lot of war time documents (orders, private letters), which prove mass shootings.

Was gass used? I don't know. The idea that the german bureaucracy did this without written orders seems a bit odd to me but who knows. (Enigma was also cracked by the allies)

What I do know is that if you say, that gass wasn't used you go to jail in Germany. In court they will not try to prove that you are lying. Simply expressing your knowledge about the case will geht you imprisoned. (if you come to the illegal conclusion)

If the attorney tries to bring in evidence in favor of the "denier" he himself will be prosecuted.
01-03-2017 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 9 users Like captndonk's post:
nomadbrah, Leonard D Neubache, Yurtley, Dr. Howard, Bushido, MMX2010, SupaDorkLooza, Charles Martel, captain_shane
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  20-30% of dads in UK are finding out that they are NOT the father Roosh 53 9,869 06-02-2019 05:33 AM
Last Post: Cumlluminates
  Does anybody find it odd Bernie Saunders doesn't have a woah is me holocaust schtick quaker13 14 2,758 02-26-2019 04:03 AM
Last Post: Sp5
  I’m an Ugly Loser and I’m starting a Youtube Channel around that fact. UglyLoser 39 8,605 04-22-2018 11:15 AM
Last Post: Cr33pin

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication