Why The Holocaust Must Be Questioned

[Sean Renaud]

[
Oh, and Wikipedia is that wonderfully inaccurate site where a photo captioned as being a mass-grave is quite obviously a hole full of garbage and left over building materials and nothing more...

Did you read the Wiki page on this or did you just tear it down?

The actual quote beneath the picture reads:

A mass grave in Treblinka opened in March 1943, the bodies were removed for burning in this picture taken by the camp's deputy commander . In the background, dark gray piles of ash from cremated bodies can be seen.

So you shouldn't see any bodies in the pictures. Those fuzzy piles of sand in the back are supposedly human ash.

And really quoting Wiki, the people's encyclopedia. Pretty soon it will be legit to quote Busybody around here. Holy fucking shit.

 

[krastner]

Did you read the Wiki page on this or did you just tear it down?

The actual quote beneath the picture reads:

A mass grave in Treblinka opened in March 1943, the bodies were removed for burning in this picture taken by the camp's deputy commander . In the background, dark gray piles of ash from cremated bodies can be seen.

So you shouldn't see any bodies in the pictures. Those fuzzy piles of sand in the back are supposedly human ash.

And really quoting Wiki, the people's encyclopedia. Pretty soon it will be legit to quote Busybody around here. Holy fucking shit.

I looked at the pictures and what i see is a pit that was only dug up to about two feet. It has a lot of old planks lying around. Now I see a garbage pit. Lucky me, lucky us, we have a commentary that tells us what we see. I mean the bodies, if any were in fact buried there, would have been only covered with a light layer of dirt. Then again...why bury them first iof you are going to creamate them. Do bodies that have been previously buried burn better. You tell me ..You are the expert that sees things that aren't there.

Piles of human remains..piles of dirt..How do you know that they are human remains. Why not pictures of the bodies. Of course we have no way of knowing if these bodies were Jewish...It's all about believing what you are told to bel;ieve..Evedentally you beliebed...I beleive massa I beliebe ..oh God I beliebe...did you have an religious experience that led you to your conclusions..

Oh you can say...in your simple mindediness that the proof is in the pictures ...like why take pictures if they are not pictures of where nazi murder victims were buried.... man that's bullshit...

 

[Sean Renaud]

In all fairness Kras I was merely saying that people should properly cite the things they are quoting or not at all. That picture is so full of bullshit that it makes no sense. The only way you could make that picture make sense is if after they dug up the bodies then they bulldozed structures into the hole.

The picture is obviuosly false. I just thought Lovely was above misquoting. I mean after all the evidence she mounted against the legend of Anne Frank this seemed rather sloppy.

Also quoting Wiki is like, no offense, quoting you. You are not an authority. You are well educated no doubt but until you tell me what University you work at I'm going to assume that this is a hobby for you, not a job. Wiki is mostly made up of hobby people with some truly educated people around them.

I really won't use Wiki for anything other than sources to look at. They do tend to have bibliographies. And also for pop-culture stuff. You want to know about John Cena or Sonic the Hedgehog use Wiki. Otherwise grow up and use a real source.

 

[unculbact]

Glycol Thinner in Ink

The operative page on Lovely's post about glycol thinner in ballpoint ink is on page 36:

"The static approach is based on the compositions of ink and paper on the market that have changed along the years (See Section 1.2). Ballpoint inks appeared on the market in 1945, and had oil-based solvents until 1951 when glycol solvents were introduced".


This is news to me. Glycol, a stable form of alcohol that is the main ingredient in the anti-freeze in your car, had been around for a long time, but there you have it.

Sentence two, "Ballpoint inks appeared on the market in 1945", confused me for a minute, since ballpoints appeared in Europe as early as 1935, but I'm guessing that what they mean is that special inks designed only for ballpoints were invented then, a year after ballpoints had been introduced into the U.S.. Before that, early ballpoints, such as the Rolpen, must have used the same ink as fountain pens.

I'm REALLY impressed. Lovely has sure done her homework.

 

[ImpWizard]

Did you read the Wiki page on this or did you just tear it down?

The actual quote beneath the picture reads:

A mass grave in Treblinka opened in March 1943, the bodies were removed for burning in this picture taken by the camp's deputy commander . In the background, dark gray piles of ash from cremated bodies can be seen.

So you shouldn't see any bodies in the pictures. Those fuzzy piles of sand in the back are supposedly human ash.

There is nothing in the picture to make it believable that there ever were bodies in the hole, or that those dark piles look like anything more than fresh piles of dirt around. There is nothing in the picture to confirm the caption that went with it. No bones, no teeth, nothing at all.

It's like me taking a picture of a hole full of rubbish anywhere and saying "This is a mass grave, honest, but really there were bones in there but we moved them, that's why you can't see them, but really they were there before - honest!"

Sorry mate, not believable.

Also quoting Wiki is like, no offense, quoting you. You are not an authority. You are well educated no doubt but until you tell me what University you work at I'm going to assume that this is a hobby for you, not a job. Wiki is mostly made up of hobby people with some truly educated people around them.

I really won't use Wiki for anything other than sources to look at. They do tend to have bibliographies. And also for pop-culture stuff. You want to know about John Cena or Sonic the Hedgehog use Wiki. Otherwise grow up and use a real source.

And that is exactly what Lovelynice was driving at. Some idiot quoted from Wikipedia - and she pointed out that it was not in any way a reliable source.

 

[ImpWizard]

In all fairness Kras I was merely saying that people should properly cite the things they are quoting or not at all. That picture is so full of bullshit that it makes no sense. The only way you could make that picture make sense is if after they dug up the bodies then they bulldozed structures into the hole.

The picture is obviuosly false. I just thought Lovely was above misquoting. .

She wasn't misquoting it. Check the wikipedia page for Treblinka.

Lovelynice only pointed out that the photo was not believable as anything other than a picture of a hole full of rubbish - and that's exactly what it looks like.

KRcummings first put the thing up on a post a few pages back, and LN blew it up nice and big so that all the timber and garbage was visible - but no evidence anywhere in that photo that it's a mass grave.

It's like the photo of so-called "gas van" that's on the JewishVirtualLibrary site, which according to document PS-501 and all the other unreliable testimonies is supposed to be a "Sauer" diesel truck, but it's the wrong make and model, and has nothing in the photo showing that it's anything more than an old wrecked truck with some guys standing around looking at it as if to say "Oh bugger this, the damn engine got hit".

 

[ImpWizard]

(to sean renaud) I looked at the pictures and what i see is a pit that was only dug up to about two feet. It has a lot of old planks lying around. Now I see a garbage pit. Lucky me, lucky us, we have a commentary that tells us what we see. I mean the bodies, if any were in fact buried there, would have been only covered with a light layer of dirt. Then again...why bury them first iof you are going to creamate them. Do bodies that have been previously buried burn better. You tell me ..You are the expert that sees things that aren't there.

Piles of human remains..piles of dirt..How do you know that they are human remains. Why not pictures of the bodies. Of course we have no way of knowing if these bodies were Jewish...It's all about believing what you are told to believe..Evidentially you believed...I believe massa I believe ..oh God I believe...did you have a religious experience that led you to your conclusions..

Oh you can say...in your simple mindediness that the proof is in the pictures ...like why take pictures if they are not pictures of where nazi murder victims were buried.... man that's bullshit...

It's all about religion. You gotta join the Holy Church of the Holocaust - or be conned into accepting the dogma rammed down kids throats, shoved onto everyone in the West, and shouted at us from the media and Hollywood.

Don't dare question, or they'll try their damnedest to destroy your life, send you to prison, and blacklist you everywhere.

And if you're jewish, they'll say you're a self-hating Jew. Weird. It's completely nuts.

 

[Drinking Cap]

And that is exactly what Lovelynice was driving at. Some idiot quoted from Wikipedia - and she pointed out that it was not in any way a reliable source.

And, again, compared to the sources you and your ilk have used, Wikipedia is as authoritative as god in comparison.

 

[krastner]

It's all about religion. You gotta join the Holy Church of the Holocaust - or be conned into accepting the dogma rammed down kids throats, shoved onto everyone in the West, and shouted at us from the media and Hollywood.

Don't dare question, or they'll try their damnedest to destroy your life, send you to prison, and blacklist you everywhere.

And if you're jewish, they'll say you're a self-hating Jew. Weird. It's completely nuts.

Think I'll pass on the religious bullshit but it's true..Oh by the by, it seems that there is a shit list in Israel of over 10,000 Jewish persons that are anti semitic (as called by the Zionist state). They have challenged contempory Jewi......excuse me...ZIONIST thinking on the holocaust and many other zionist traditional thought.

 

[ImpWizard]

And, again, compared to the sources you and your ilk have used, Wikipedia is as authoritative as god in comparison.

Hiding behind religious terms instead of using actual scientificallly verifiable evidence isn't doing you too well.

And it appears that you are trying to pretend the "All Revisionists are wrong" kind of crap.

 

[ImpWizard]

Think I'll pass on the religious bullshit but it's true..Oh by the by, it seems that there is a shit list in Israel of over 10,000 Jewish persons that are anti semitic (as called by the Zionist state). They have challenged contempory Jewi......excuse me...ZIONIST thinking on the holocaust and many other zionist traditional thought.

Yes, the SHiT list.

The Zionists call them "self-hating jews" which is a bizarre bullshit accusation because in truth, most jews are not zionists. So how can they be "self-hating" when they aren't zionists in the first place.

It's a typical lie used by the zionist hate-groups.

Some of those people are on that list simply because they did the right thing and protested against the continual hateful and disgusting actions of the zionist Israeli govt policy of killing Palestinian kids, bulldozing people's homes (sometimes with the residents still inside them), and taking away Palestinian children from their parents and keeping them as hostages in prisons where all sorts of horrible things have been done to them. But that's a subject for another thead. I won't go into it here.

I read through the list a few days ago. One man was only on the list because he wrote a song that they didn't like. Petty. Very petty and spiteful.

 

[Drinking Cap]

Hiding behind religious terms instead of using actual scientificallly verifiable evidence isn't doing you too well.

And it appears that you are trying to pretend the "All Revisionists are wrong" kind of crap.

The truth hurts, don't it? The sources you've used have been laughable at best even in a debate taking place on an internet forum.

It's been the same tired tactic. You take one bizarre stance, whether it be the existance of the vans or the veracity of Anne Frank's diary, and attempt to justify your position using sources that are are entirely more dubious than Wikipedia and then when someone like Zip comes along and posts actual information, you hop to the next ludicrous claim in a ridiculous attempt to try to drown out the debate with a mountain of bullshit.

 

[woody54]

And, again, compared to the sources you and your ilk have used, Wikipedia is as authoritative as god in comparison.

The authoratativeness of "reliable" sources like Wikipedia is blown out of the water by the reality that in spite of their best efforts to scour the available worldwide suitable evidence, the zionist prosecution could not promote a defining case against Ernst Zundel to prove a Holocaust took place.

This highlights the true fragility of evidence that the Holocaust relies on. Wikipedia just promotes the speculative and mostly dubious support for the Holocoaust myth.

It amuses me that Holocaust supporters work from faith to deny any encroachment of reality into their world.

Clearly there needs to be a distinction between the religious belief aspect of Jewry and the reality of human involvements in that period of history. Mixing of the two scenarios is nonsensical and is reason why few Holocaust supporters can show any viable evidence for their beliefs. Bleating about antisemitism and its associated character assassinations of dissenters is sure proof there is no body of evidence that definitively proves the Holocaust was as portrayed by Zionist myth.

A Jewish controlled media ensures a onesided perspective is maintained to support the persistent brainwashing Westerners undergo about Holocaust promotion.

 

[woody54]

sources that are are entirely more dubious than Wikipedia and then when someone like Zip comes along and posts actual information, you hop to the next ludicrous claim in a ridiculous attempt to try to drown out the debate with a mountain of bullshit.

What the fuck is "actual" information?

All it means is you approve that source against others and provides no measure of validity.

In the Holocaust debate, it is extremely difficult to tie believers down to debate specific points and the gas van discussion shows the usual distinct lack of interest in providing validating evidence to support the holocaust myth.

Most of the points raised by Holocaust questioners are rooted in science, reality and logic, thereby being very difficult to disprove by those who have a mythology to protect from a real world.

The mountain of bullshit is from the pro-zionist side because i am still waiting for anyone to prove beyond doubt that one jew was gassed by the germans. How about some "actual" evidence on that one instead of generalised dismissals of the questions for those who want to know the real truth.

 

[ImpWizard]

The operative page on Lovely's post about glycol thinner in ballpoint ink is on page 36:

"The static approach is based on the compositions of ink and paper on the market that have changed along the years (See Section 1.2). Ballpoint inks appeared on the market in 1945, and had oil-based solvents until 1951 when glycol solvents were introduced".


This is news to me. Glycol, a stable form of alcohol that is the main ingredient in the anti-freeze in your car, had been around for a long time, but there you have it.

Sentence two, "Ballpoint inks appeared on the market in 1945", confused me for a minute, since ballpoints appeared in Europe as early as 1935, but I'm guessing that what they mean is that special inks designed only for ballpoints were invented then, a year after ballpoints had been introduced into the U.S.. Before that, early ballpoints, such as the Rolpen, must have used the same ink as fountain pens.

I'm REALLY impressed. Lovely has sure done her homework.

Learn something new everyday.

Now I know why she kept saying that the BKA examination in 1980 said that it was writing from a ballpoint pen of a make and model that didn't exist until 1951. I didn't think they could be wrong about the ballpoint pens not being invented yet, even though that's the thing everyone keeps (wrongly) going on about, because the BKA experts would already know that ballpoints had been around longer than that. So why did they state it was a 1951 or later make of ballpoint pen? - Because the ink on the paper was a glycol thinner based ink made for ballpoint pens that didn't exist until 1951

It's very difficult to tell the exact age of inks of the same chemical composition (according to this document from Interpol in 2004 http://www.interpol.int/Public/Forensic/IFSS/meeting14/ReviewPapers.pdf ). The only way for the BKA to positively identify the ink as being from a ballpoint pen of a make that did not exist until 1951 was by the chemical composition of the ink. Prior to 1951, the ballpoint pens used an oil-based solvent (according to that Bundeskriminalamt forensics study of inks pdf file that Lovelynice cited), and only from 1951 until the 1960s did they use a glycol solvent. That was the only way that the BKA could identify the ink as being from a ballpoint pen of 1951 or later.

I also noticed the very careful and circumspect wording of all those experts;

1) Handwriting was from the same person but they avoid saying who that person was. That allows the pretense to continue that it must've been Anne Frank when the handwriting experts don't specifically state that.

2) Handwriting from the examplars matching, but they avoid saying whether that was only the alleged diary or whether that includes postcards and other letters - and it's easy for anyone to see that although the handwriting in the diary is the same style on every page, it clearly doesn't match that of Anne Frank's postcards and letters.

3) In 1986 (6 years after their 1980 investigation), the BKA couldn't point out where the corrections and notations with ballpoint ink were in the alleged diary, although they were very clear in their 1980 report that all the alleged diary volumes had corrections and notations, and the 4th volume was largely written in that same ballpoint ink from 1951 or later. That tells 2 things since they aren't going to contradict their earlier forensics study;
- a) The alleged diary volumes examined in 1980 had corrections and notations in that 1951 ballpoint ink, and the 4th volume was largely written in this same 1951 ballpoint ink.
- b) The alleged diary volumes examined in 1986 did not have ANY corrections and notations which means they weren't the same alleged diaries that were examined in 1980.

Somebody pulled a fast one on the Bundeskriminalamt in other words.

 

[Drinking Cap]

Somebody pulled a fast one on the Bundeskriminalamt in other words.

Yeah. You guys are right, they're wrong. No wonder you're winning so many people over.

 

[ImpWizard]

The truth hurts, don't it?

Hurting you anyway. Not hurting me at all. The truth is that the actual scientific evidence is backing OUR SIDE of the argument. Also, YOU personally have posted absolutely FUCK ALL and are just wanking off like a braindead cheerleader.

The sources you've used have been laughable at best even in a debate taking place on an internet forum.

Oh yeah sure.

OUR side has posted links to files from such credible sources at INTERPOL, the BundesKriminalAmt (BKA), scientific studies from the British Journal of Industrial Medicine, the European DEFRA, commercial and industrial sites referring to Diesel Engines, producers of high temperature rubber, forensics science reports, and similar sources of extremely high credibility.

YOUR side with it's bunch of gullible morons has posted quotes from Wikipedia and claims it's as good as the word of God.

You have got to be kidding!

You're fucking DUMB, man.

 

[ImpWizard]

Yeah. You guys are right, they're wrong. No wonder you're winning so many people over.

No, the BKA is right. The ink on the alleged diaries examined in 1980 is from a 1951 ballpoint pen with an ink which did not exist until 1951. Meaning the alleged diaries are a hoax.

The only one wrong is you for your great display of illiteracy and shoe-size level of intelligence.

 

[ImpWizard]

(to the braindead idiot Drinking Cap) What the fuck is "actual" information?

All it means is you approve that source against others and provides no measure of validity.

In the Holocaust debate, it is extremely difficult to tie believers down to debate specific points and the gas van discussion shows the usual distinct lack of interest in providing validating evidence to support the holocaust myth.

Most of the points raised by Holocaust questioners are rooted in science, reality and logic, thereby being very difficult to disprove by those who have a mythology to protect from a real world.

The mountain of bullshit is from the pro-zionist side because i am still waiting for anyone to prove beyond doubt that one jew was gassed by the germans. How about some "actual" evidence on that one instead of generalised dismissals of the questions for those who want to know the real truth.

He hasn't got any actual information. Have you ever seen Drinking Cap even cite a single source on this subject? I haven't. He's as moronically useless as Miles.

 

[ImpWizard]

The authoritativeness of "reliable" sources like Wikipedia is blown out of the water by the reality that in spite of their best efforts to scour the available worldwide suitable evidence, the zionist prosecution could not promote a defining case against Ernst Zundel to prove a Holocaust took place.

This highlights the true fragility of evidence that the Holocaust relies on. Wikipedia just promotes the speculative and mostly dubious support for the Holocoaust myth.

Apart from the fact that Wikipedia pages can be written and edited by any idiot who comes along.

 

[Drinking Cap]

Hurting you anyway. Not hurting me at all. The truth is that the actual scientific evidence is backing OUR SIDE of the argument. Also, YOU personally have posted absolutely FUCK ALL and are just wanking off like a braindead cheerleader.

My tolerance for humouring fools is nowhere near the level of Zip's.

 

[ImpWizard]

My tolerance for humouring fools is nowhere near the level of Zip's.

Neither's mine. So bugger off fool.

When you personally can cite some sources and use REAL LOGIC to support your bullshit claims come back.

 

[Drinking Cap]

Neither's mine. So bugger off fool.

When you personally can cite some sources and use REAL LOGIC to support your bullshit claims come back.

No, that's alright. I'll pop in from time to time, remind anyone who might be reading this thread that you and your ilk are a bunch of mouth-breathing retards and have a little bit of fun at your expense.

But, by all means, continue furiously masturbating as you happen onto another ridiculous topic that has no basis in reality. It's terrifically amusing for all of us who are still tethered to sanity.

 

[ImpWizard]

No, that's alright. I'll pop in from time to time, remind anyone who might be reading this thread that...(snip).

...remind everyone who's reading this thread that you're one of the braindead idiots who believe nonsense like this kind of crap>

Yeah, you do that.

Otherwise admit that you don't and stop pretending that it's in anyway reasonable.

It's terrifically amusing for all of us who are still tethered to sanity.

Which doesn't include you, since if you believe any of the nonsense above then you most definitely are not tethered to anything more than fantastic levels of delusion inducing hallucinogens.

 

[Drinking Cap]

...remind everyone who's reading this thread that you're one of the braindead idiots who believe nonsense like this kind of crap>

Yeah, you do that.

Otherwise admit that you don't and stop pretending that it's in anyway reasonable.

Ah, crudely drawn cartoons, really the gold standard of any substantial debate.

Which doesn't include you, since if you believe any of the nonsense above then you most definitely are not tethered to anything more than fantastic levels of delusion inducing hallucinogens.

Yup. Just me and the entire world, save for a few lone idiots who believe things like the moon landing was faked and the pyramids were built by aliens. What a lonely group to belong to.