Holocaust Denial [MOD NOTE POST #1]

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We have studies that show his analysis is flawed which I linked to. He either incompetent or he lied to save his career or maybe he honestly believed what he said was true?

We also have studies that show the Leuchter Report is flawed which has been linked to you. So..

King Mob

No no, evidence please. Not more of your theorising.
You said he's lying. Back that up with actual evidence or admit you're lying.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Hadn’t the Nazis abandoned the camps by then? They actively sought to destroy evidence, even some chambers. I’d be shocked if they left much hazmat gear behind. And gas would have been exhausted surely: either to atmosphere where it’s concentration would become far lower or bubbles through to water where it would become inert. I could see misting or steaming a room having a similar outcome. The primary mechanism being though that the toxin was absorbed into the bloodstream of the dead in the room, which is why concentrations were found in the crematoriums.

All the same, the matter is already at rest. The Holocaust Happened and every time I go out and look at your claims there’s been a thorough debunking of these points, such as my most recent discovery of articles addressing the lack of Prussian Blue on the walls, due to Zinc catalysis, and much lower air concentrations, much shorter exposure times, and absorption by the victims. I don’t know why this is hard to grasp. Next I imagine I will actually go and find out how they exhausted the chambers and to my amusement will confirm that the methods historically used align with my engineering theories above.

They found intact gas chambers what they forget to plant the explosives? If they are trying to covering up they did a bad job.

It's a theory that it never proven or replicated. Scientifically unproven theory.

King Mob

Cheerful, I know you like to ignore uncomfortable questions until people move on, but not letting this go until you prove it or admit you're lying.

What did the lab manager say specifically that was untrue, then specifically show how it's untrue with evidence.
It's best to go one thing at a time.

And yes, this had to be your own work, so no more plagiarising from propaganda sites.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No no, evidence please. Not more of your theorising.
You said he's lying. Back that up with actual evidence or admit you're lying.

I don't have evidence his lying. However, there is a flip side of the coin, have you a reason to believe he did not lie?

Overheal

You want them to replicate it how? Gas some people in a chamber? What is so hard about this for you?

Hitler maintained an order to exterminate as many Jews as possible, while Himmler ordered the evidence destroyed as Russia and Allied forces closed in. As we know, Hitler and his Generals *always* saw eye to eye...

The commanders at the camps decided the compromise option: have prison laborers dismantle the chambers, I presume so that the order to destroy them was rescinded they would have their asses covered. As the Nazis lost more ground though they staged a more immediate retreat from the camps and didn’t do a thorough job destroying the chambers.

http://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-tried-to-cover-up-their-crimes-at-auschwitz

BTW I did look, and the chambers were vented to atmosphere and sprayed down with water before crews went in to harvest the bodies. So there ya go.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't have evidence his lying. However, there is a flip side of the coin, have you a reason to believe he did not lie?

Yes. Tons you've been given these repeatedly.

Now you have no evidence yet said that he lied as a fact. Why did you lie?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't have evidence his lying. However, there is a flip side of the coin, have you a reason to believe he did not lie?

Yes,

“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

“I do.”

There was also the matter of all the labwork that spoke for itself. Including how it was all just pulverized brick and such. Leuchter couldn’t produce documentation of his sample collection could he? Whoops

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Yes,

“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

“I do.”

There was also the matter of all the labwork that spoke for itself.

His lab worked proved Fred A. Leuchter theory.

The rest of its speculation by Dr Roth.

King Mob

Also the fact that if he did lie it would be obvious, and super racist David Irving would have used it to counter his testimony and then the manager would have been punished for committing perjury in court.

Pretty strong motivators there.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Also the fact that if he did lie it would be obvious, and super racist David Irving would have used it to counter his testimony and then the manager would have been punished for committing perjury in court.

Pretty strong motivators there.

Dr Roth theory has been countered by Holocaust revisionists wrong again.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The rest of its speculation by Dr Roth.

Oh, now it's just speculation?
You've flip flopped again. Previously you were saying it was deliberate lies.

So specifically which parts of his testimony were speculation? Which parts were incorrect?

Why is his speculation as a scientist not valid, while yours as an admitted non scientist is valid?
Do you know more than him?
Is he just stupid?

If so, then why trust the results at all if they were produced by such a bad scientist?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Roth theory has been countered by Holocaust revisionists wrong again.

That’s like saying the spherical earth has been countered by flat earthers. “Ha! Check mate, liberals”

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. Tons you've been given these repeatedly.

Now you have no evidence yet said that he lied as a fact. Why did you lie?

There my feelings what happened could I be wrong of course. Prove I am wrong though if you can't get back in your box.

Realt Dearg Sec

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't have evidence his lying. However, there is a flip side of the coin, have you a reason to believe he did not lie?

A conspiracy theorist in a nutshell right there. A few pages ago you were saying the gas chambers did exist, but now you are arguing that they're a hoax.

Well, of course, you're NOT arguing that, another hallmark of the conspiracy theorist. You just "ask questions", and avoid ever having to actually come out with an actual explanation of what it is you believe or what you are getting at. And any time someone corners you on the obvious implications of what your "questions" lead us to conclude, you back off them, and change tack, again, just in the interest of asking questions, of course.

But while some people here are hammering you again and again on the science, my background is rhetoric, and I know a bull**** artist when I see one. That's why this discussion never actually ends, because while your approach has a vaguely scientific LOOK to it, it is just a pretence. The people you're arguing with start out with a set of facts and seek an explanation. You don't operate that way, not in sum. But in each individual post, on each individual aspect of the "controversy", it LOOKS like you are taking facts and seeking an explanation. But in total, your approach is much more nebulous and slippery, and it allows you to move around easily, always looking at that moment like you're pursuing rational inquiry, just asking questions amirite?

But it just requires someone to step back, and take a look, to see what you're really doing. Early on mentioning the 4 million figure for Auschwitz. Debunked. So suddenly we're discussing something else, like emigration figures. In the meantime little phrases crop up, like "Holocaust supporters", and "Jewish figures" (by which you mean verified stats), and eventually you let the mask drop briefly by, inadvertently, saying that the numbers are exaggerated by Israel (no distinction between the state and the people, of course) to garner sympathy. Then you back off that and have a post in which you claim to believe the whole thing, with the possible exception of the number six million. Maybe four, you say. But here you are several pages later, implying that the gas chambers are a fabrication. Believing numbers from a source that you also say is a liar without substantiating why, swallowing whole the numbers of long debunked sources.

I could go on: my point isn't to engage with any of these specific "arguments". It's to point out what should be obvious, each one seems to serve a slightly different argument, the argument is shifting and slippery. At best, there is no argument, you're "just asking questions here". At worst, though, there's an agenda here that is just smart enough to not want to actually declare itself, because of how ridiculous it would sound, and how offensive. So instead you just keep shifting around, sowing doubt, hoping to be able to muddy the waters without ever having to make any declarative statement about what your actual belief is: there could be no such statement here that would encompass all the things you've asserted because it's all so completely contradictory.

Like I said, a bull**** artist. But don't for a moment think anyone is falling for it. You are at best a harmless dupe. I wouldn't like to say what the worst possibility is, seeing as how Godwin's Law seems to imply that we can't call a shovel a shovel on the internet anymore.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There my feelings what happened could I be wrong of course. Prove I am wrong though if you can't get back in your box.

That’s Shifting the Burden of Proof. It’s not up to us to prove your theory about the Vantablack Teapot Kettle being in orbit on the dark side of the moon is false, it’s up to you to prove the teapot is there.

and don’t backseat mod, or you’ll be placed in a box.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Roth theory has been countered by Holocaust revisionists wrong again.

*deniers, not revisionists. Let's keep thw terminology straight.
And no they didn't. They like you just lie and make up stories like he perjured himself.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

That’s Shifting the Burden of Proof. It’s not up to us to prove your theory about the Vantablack Teapot Kettle being in orbit on the dark side of the moon is false, it’s up to you to prove the teapot is there.

and don’t backseat mod, or you’ll be placed in a box.

You stepping in here and it's unfair as you agree with Kingmob and his position on things. That can be considered bullying but I am thick skinned so I survive.

Banterbus28

Chrongen wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

Thread splitting from here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106894796
Cause this racist nonsense shouldn't be left unchallenged.

No, you are not "questioning the numbers". You are repeating an argument you have found on the internet that is spread by racist propaganda.
You have never actually looked into the information and you are just parroting it without critical thought.
This makes you a holocaust denier.

Ok.
Who first claimed it was 4 million? When?
When was it reduced to 1.1 million? By who? Why?
Where does the figure of 6 million come from? How is it broken down? Does it rely on 1.1 million deaths at Auschwitz or 4 million?

If you had actually done any research, you could easily answer these questions, and you would know why your claim is nonsense.

This is an article from the Chicago Tribune dated 1992:

In it it is stated that the number estimated to have been killed at Auschwitz was 4 million. This figure was inscribed on plaques. These plaques were removed in 1989.

One of the sad truths about Auschwitz, Polish and Jewish historians agree, is that the exact number of victims will never be known. The Nazis destroyed most of the camp records to cover up their crimes.

Franzicek Piper believes that about 1 million Jews died at Auschwitz. The article also states that the downward revision strengthens the case that more were killed elsewhere. This I find baffling. The article also states that if ones doubts the numbers then one is actually stating that the Holocaust never happened.

Well this is the kind of Orwellian point that you are trying to make Mr. King Mob. Question the narrative and you are a subversive. Express reservations about torture and you and not "with us, you're with the terrorists".

What would you say about those who question the numbers but believe them to be higher rather than lower? Would you tell them that they are wrong? You see expert historians have come to the conclusion that 4 million didn't die at Auschwitz but that the figure was closer to 1.1 million yet in the article you have a 26 year old American named Ken Hanau. His quote:

"Just because you are telling me the figure was only 1.5 million, I am not believing it."

Because he read in several books that the figure was 4 million.

So what would you say to him? Is he a denier because he doubts the numbers too?

You do understand that Auschwitz was only one of a network as laid out in the "Final Solution"

But anyways you're an idiot, no point talking to a idiot.

King Mob

Cheerful, focus. Whine about how unfair people are to holocaust deniers till when youve answered questions.

Which parts of Roths testimony was speculation. And which parts were incorrect?
Provide evidence.

Why do you trust this guy when you believe he's so dishonest he'd lie in court, or so incompetent that you are better at chemistry than him?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

*deniers, not revisionists. Let's keep thw terminology straight.
And no they didn't. They like you just lie and make up stories like he perjured himself.

This the standard you work from

Clear photographic evidence of blue staining on walls caused by Zyklon B found at Auschwitz and other camps.

Gas Chambers nothing like this was found. Prussia blue is evidence Zyklon was used.

Some guy proposes a theory on a website. Done finished that's how it happened revisionists and deniers so silly aren't they:rolleyes:

King Mob

Sorry Cheerful. I'm not going to be distracted by your gish galloping.
I'm asking you about Roths testimony.

You claim it's invalid.
Back it up or admit it's another example of you lying.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You stepping in here and it's unfair as you agree with Kingmob and his position on things. That can be considered bullying but I am thick skinned so I survive.

Normally I consider this kind of comment against the rules but this is an already irregular conversation and I am a contributor to it:

I can finely distinguish between modding and contributing, which frankly I have been dragged into in order to make sure I’m doing that job effectively, here, by keeping tabs in a discussion which has been very contentious, heavily reported by users, and is resulting in a heightened level of activity for this normally docile forum. Should it come to it, my actions are open to a higher level of review need you dispute anything done against you. I genuinely don’t feel you have been bullied nor opened up to more criticism than you have invited yourself to. I will of course action users that go across the line.

Like I’ve said you’ve already been allowed to go way out of the bounds of the guidelines I put at the start of this thread, and are now suggesting the gas chambers were a hoax. You’ve been given a very reasonable amount of lattitude, in my humble opinion, to have this conversation. I’d be well within my bounds to lock this thread and forbid all further Holocaust denial discussion. As it is you’re holding yourself to a special double standard of evidence and speculation on the subject, and special goalposts, which I am tolerant of other users calling you out on within reason. So I appreciate you having a thick skin for the conversation. So far though, you have expressed views and opinions that make it not unreasonable to read comments from others here that consider you a liar, Holocaust Denier, or Anti-Zionist, all of which is purely evidenced from posts you’ve made on this thread. If you think that is unreasonable, then, we can just lock the conversation here as being at an impasse.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, focus. Whine about how unfair people are to holocaust deniers till when youve answered questions.

Which parts of Roths testimony was speculation. And which parts were incorrect?
Provide evidence.

Why do you trust this guy when you believe he's so dishonest he'd lie in court, or so incompetent that you are better at chemistry than him?

The speculation part was him explaining what could cause the brick to not have left traces of Zyklon B. He offered up two explanations.

This point is not important. Maybe his unaware no Prussian blue was found on the wall inside of the gas chamber?

In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue [read: hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration.”

The evidence is based on a study done by L. Schwarz, W. Deckert, “Experimentelle Untersuchungen bei Blausäureausgasungen,” Z. Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten, that cyanide can penetrate hard thick walls

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

]
The speculation part was him explaining what could cause the brick to not have left traces of Zyklon B. He offered up two explanations.

This point is not important. Maybe his unaware no Prussian blue was found on the wall inside of the gas chamber?

In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue [read: hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration.”

The evidence is based on a study done by L. Schwarz, W. Deckert, “Experimentelle Untersuchungen bei Blausäureausgasungen,” Z. Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten, that cyanide can penetrate hard thick walls

Ok. So how deep exactly?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This the standard you work from

Clear photographic evidence of blue staining on walls caused by Zyklon B found at Auschwitz and other camps.

Gas Chambers nothing like this was found. Prussia blue is evidence Zyklon was used.

Some guy proposes a theory on a website. Done finished that's how it happened revisionists and deniers so silly aren't they:rolleyes:

As opposed to guy proposes theory on a website based on pictures that gas wasn’t used in gas chambers because of the blue staining. You see what I mean about double standards?

I feel the chemistry and situation offered was a very reasonable explanation for why you see Prussia Blue in delousing chambers (1600 ppm for days at a time to kill lice) and not the gas chambers (300 ppm for minutes to be absorbed into the lungs of ~150 people at a time then the chamber is sprayed down with water rendering all of the chemical on contact with the walls inert, with zinc metals present to catalyze with the gas).

You still haven’t said what science you would accept as an answer to assuage your doubts about this.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So how deep exactly?

Roth claims first ten micrometres of the wall when he gave a media interview.

But he said something different in the court case. He this.

In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue [read: hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration.”

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Roth claims first ten micrometres of the wall when he gave a media interview.

But he said something different in the court case. He this.

In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue [read: hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration.”

“Fairly deep” is that metric or imperial?

King Mob

OK, how deep in your uneducated opinion should it have gone.

Exact number and evidence please.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

“Fairly deep” is that metric or imperial?

10 micrometres isn't fairly deep he changed his tune when he appeared in court.