Gaschamberhoax.com

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28178
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Gaschamberhoax.com

Post by Nessie »

generic wrote:
Nessie wrote:If we are to dismiss Arad over an alleged lie in an e-mail, should we not completely dismiss Hunt as he has been proven to be a liar from his court statements?
How has he been proven a liar, in what way? Because he renounced his former views? I think Eric probably had no other choice than to say whatever he could to save his own ass. America has long prison sentences. And their prisons are prolly not very comfy. So I cannot blame him for it.

But you are supporting a liar and an alleged war criminal. Do you see a problem with that, Nessie? Do you like only some liars and some criminals? Perhaps if the liar and criminal is j*wish? Just genuinely curious, actually.
Hunt lied to the court saying he would renounce his beliefs. You are saying that he did that to avoid a long sentence. But he still lied. I am asking you why do you support one liar and dismiss the other?

Or is it the case that you support the liar who agrees with your views and decry the one who does not?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28178
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Gaschamberhoax.com

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Nessie wrote:If we are to dismiss Arad over an alleged lie in an e-mail, should we not completely dismiss Hunt as he has been proven to be a liar from his court statements?
The difference is that Arad is considered an expert in a subject that he has been exposed lying about. Hunt hasn't.
Arad has been exposed as a liar about being involved in war-crimes, crimes against humanity and murder. Hunt hasn't.
Arad has been caught in a lie that accuses others of war crimes and mass-murder for which people were brutally tortured and hanged. Hunt hasn't.
Its really an obvious question of scale.
What has Hunt been found gulty of lying about? Presumably you think he lied in court about renouncing his holocaust revisionist views? Is that it?

This isn't really about dismissing one person, Arad, over an email, as you suggested (strawman).
Its about a mammoth lie concerning the scale of an alleged but unproven planned systematic mass-murder/genocide. Arad is just being exposed as one prominent, notable proponent of this topic which comes with mammoth blood-libel lies and deceit.

If you can not see or acknowledge the difference between that and what Eric said in court I pity you.
I pity you for not being able to see the difference between an SS camp guard and a sonderkommando.

So Arad is a big fat liar, but Hunt is only a little one, so Hunt is OK and Arad is not. I think it is the case that you support the liar whose argument you agree with. You are more inclined to forgive the one you support, whilst criticising others for doing exactly the same.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2303
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Gaschamberhoax.com

Post by Scott »

Nessie wrote:
If we are to dismiss Arad over an alleged lie in an e-mail, should we not completely dismiss Hunt as he has been proven to be a liar from his court statements?
Is Arad lying too?

It seems to me that Arad's position is exactly what he is purported to have said it was in the Hunt e-mail.

After all, Arad coined the "Pure Extermination Camps" position in a timely manner because elsewhere it was becoming increasingly easier to establish that insecticide was used for what Pressac called "mostly non-homicidal purposes."

As far as the folklorists, I've never given them much credence as witnesses anyway because the actual evidence for homicidal gaschambers is THIN, and even thinner at the "Ramshackle" Camps. They have rarely held up to much credibility at best. Even when the Shoah interviewers interject occasionally and ask if these people saw these things for themselves, the Hearsay is deemed important to the memorialization.

The provenance of the "gas 'em and burn 'em-narrative" is never clear even when supposedly adjudicated, but regardless, people do seem to think that they should have expected poison gas instead of water to have come streaming out of the shower heads during the war--just like the atrocity stories involving steam, vacuum, or gas that were reported in the Allied news going as far back as 1942.

People like Rabbi Wise were lamenting to American officials in letters that millions of his co-religionists were being gassed and turned into fertilizer--usually with the officials responding back thanking them for their support in the war-effort and that they must be patient whilst these millions of Jews are liquidated, but that they will have Shakespearian revenge in course and that victory in the war is assured.

That victorious governments wanted or needed a postwar justification for their globalist moral-interventionism and imperialism that continues today, and tried to develop a War-Crimes evidence stream out of this echo-chamber of agitprop and hyperbole, is not surprising either.

But repeating the same hearsay and urban legends does not make any of it more true. It is not what professional Skeptic Michael Shermer calls a "convergence of evidence."

Auschwitz was the Papa Bear of "Extermination Camps" as long as it was under Communist control. Now its back to the primacy of original camps like Treblinka, where Soviet propagandists like Grossman reported that millions were gassed and burned, based supposedly on boots-on-the-ground evidence acquired from the Red Army occupation, but in reality with little more evidence than what Allied agitprop could be found published in New York during the war.

Unlike Majdanek and Auschwitz, the death rates or even reliable intakes at what Arad calls the "Pure Extermination Camps" will not likely ever be adjusted down simply because there is a lot less real evidence to prove the negative.

And there is no great urgency to ever find any archaeological proof that hundreds of thousands of corpses had earlier arrived, were killed, buried, then dug-up, burned, and re-buried there. Until then, stuff like Rachel Auerbach's 1946 photo of a handful of bones found and some concrete and stone memorials "bears mute witness" today. For extraordinary claims that SHOULD require extraordinary evidence, a few tin cans will not do. But without-a-trace is better left to folklore and tampered Halloween treats.

In any case, video evidence is available to show that people really BELIEVE that it is literally a miracle that water came out of shower heads instead of poison gas.

That is proof right there of urban legends and rumor and propaganda at best--agitprop at worst. People are on film such as on the Donahue show that they smelled the stench of human-soapmaking and other such nonsense. Rarely does anybody set them straight unless they are anti-Semites or anti-anti-Semites.

Arad's contribution to revision was that "Ivan Demianuk" was some other Nazi war-criminal and not Treblinka's "Ivan the Terrible," already supposedly killed in a revolt. Finger-pointing Survivors at John Demjanjuk's public trial in Israel did not of course agree with that thesis. There he is! For them this might as well have been another be-monocled Dr. Mengele with riding crop making gassing selections to the right or to the left on the ramp. It is no surprise that the Bundestablishment crack at the bat was better delayed indefinitely until another public trial was rendered superfluous after Demjanjuk's death.

:)
dr-mengele_monocle.jpg

“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
~ Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
historian – England

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28178
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Gaschamberhoax.com

Post by Nessie »

Do you condemn Hunt for lying in court?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2303
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Gaschamberhoax.com

Post by Scott »

Nessie wrote:
Do you condemn Hunt for lying in court?
I haven't actually read a trial transcript, just seen the same hostile newspaper articles on the subject.

But I am not facing prison either, nor having been in jail for months or years waiting for my day in court over having touched Elie Wiesel on the sleeve in an elevator and scaring him. The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is used to fawning praise, and probably does not often hear people calling him a liar to his face.

If a "Shock Jock" did some kind of outrageous publicity stunt he would have liability insurance and an army of hatchet-faced lawyers from his production company behind him, plus a media release contract to sign along with a barrel of cash ready to sate any hurt feelings.

I am not a big fan of plea-bargains, either, but the U.S. justice system is built around the idea. You are really screwed if you insist upon your innocence and then fail to convince a jury. The judges and prosecutors threaten to throw the book at you and they mean it; that is what they were elected to do. Public Defenders also get pelts on their belts for the number of jury trials that they can AVOID. That is how the system works.

I don't know how it is in Mr. Hunt's neck of the woods, but jail in Arizona is far worse than prison in Arizona. You'd best get a bond or something so that you can wait for your trial date at home or at least wearing the ankle monitor at home or whatever. A couple of years waiting for a trial date is optimistic, although you usually will get time off of your sentence for any pre-trial time served, but it really helps if you can look more respectable at your trial in the first place rather than like your mugshot, and that is much easier to do if you are out.

Hope Mom can mortgage the farm for my bail bondsman, too, because these bail bonds are usually set very, very high, especially if there is any indignation associated with the accusations at all, which is why and when a Grand Jury might be employed. That way shotgun assertions won't bite back politically on the police, the judge, and Prosecutor if one does prevail in a jury trial after all, a contingency that would almost guarantee a subsequent lawsuit. Good luck with that, though, because politicians elected for Public Safety are rated by how many tough-on-crime lawsuits they have pending against them, and this is actually an accomplishment for them. Handling the media carefully if possible regarding such high-profile stuff is important as well, and not necessarily easy for crime novices.

I don't know if Mr. Hunt lied or not--but denying accusations about witchcraft and having congress with the Devil is a no-win situation wherever these are crimes.

Even where it is not a political crime, Holocaust Denial--whatever that means--is a "thought" crime and a Hate Crime at best. So don't get a drunk driving ticket or run over anybody incriminating on your way to the God Hates Fags rally--not that we would ever do such a thing.

;)

“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
~ Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
historian – England

User avatar
Duke Umeroffen
Posts: 5785
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Gaschamberhoax.com

Post by Duke Umeroffen »

No, that is not the difference at all. Arad is an historian, Hunt is more probably a propagandist. Hunt also committed a felony. And he lied in court about his involvement in revisionism. It was obviously deeper than that and far more addictive too. For within a matter of days he was back on codoh forum and within months was involved in the Revisionist workshop forum. The other matter of bpd is out with the bounds of discussion for me. Those are the facts..

Arad is 88 years old, its been years since he wrote that book. He probably gets dozens of queries from people like been there - and also from people who aren't revisionist propagandists. 88 years old and his memory is fading. There really no way any of us can tell if Hunt is being honest about his email exchange and I'm afraid I just don't trust him to be honest.
Viking; North Utsire; South Utsire; Forties; Cromarty; ; Firth; Tyne; Dogger. Fisher; German Bight; Humber; Thames *; Dover;

User avatar
Bernard
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Gaschamberhoax.com

Post by Bernard »

I didn't ask been-there where "some" of his unsourced quote came from. I asked the mendacious troll where this came from
Yitzhak Arad (or Itzhak Rudnicki), 87 yrs old, (born November 11, 1926) is an Israeli historian, retired IDF brigadier general and a former Soviet partisan who has served as director of Yad Vashem (Israel's official memorial to WW2 Jewish victims of what is currently called the Holocaust) from 1972 to 1993.
It was revealed in the 2000s that he had served in the NKVD and from 2006, he was investigated for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Lithuania. The prosecution investigation had to be dropped after Israel refused to cooperate, citing "failure to collect sufficient data" as an excuse.

Aged 18 Arad joined with the Soviet partisans until the end of the war, fighting the Germans, taking part in blowing up trains and in ambushes around the Narocz Forest of Belarus. He belonged to a partisan unit which was part of the Voroshilov Brigade based in Narocz forest, involved in punitive missions against other partisan groups whom they considered as enemies. The Voroshilov brigade partisans were representing Soviet interests in the region and followed the NKVD directives in numerous "revenge" actions.

According to evidence in possession of the Lithuanian court system, Arad joined the NKVD at the end of 1944, and became active in combatting the anti-Communist Lithuanian underground. He participated in the NKVD destruction of Tigras brigade of the Lithuanian Liberation Army. In an interview Arad lied and said that he was not on the NKVD payroll. But this is contradicted by the documentary evidence presented by Rytas Narvydas from the Genocide and Resistance Research Center of Lithuania.
The NKVD was a law enforcement agency of the Soviet Union that directly executed the rule of power of the All Union Communist Party. It was closely associated with the Soviet secret police, which at times was part of the agency, and is known for its political repression during the era of Joseph Stalin.
The NKVD is best known for the activities of the Gulag and the Main Directorate for State Security (GUGB), the predecessor of the KGB). The NKVD conducted mass extrajudicial executions, ran the Gulag system of forced labor camps and suppressed underground resistance, and was also responsible for mass deportations of entire nationalities and Kulaks to unpopulated regions of the country. It was also tasked with protection of Soviet borders and espionage, which included political assassinations abroad, influencing foreign governments and enforcing Stalinist policy within communist movements in other countries.

A number of actions of the partisan units that Arad belonged to and that could be considered war crimes are described in a book written by Arad himself The partisan (1979), like shooting an Armia Krajowa officer (p. 162) and a Lithuanian policeman (p. 155) who had been taken as prisoners of war. Also the burning down of houses during a punitive action against a Lithuanian village that organized self-defence against partisans and which had been armed by Germans (p 158).

In June 2007, Lithuania asked Israel to question Arad for these alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was accused of killing Lithuanian civilians and members of the anti-Soviet resistance movement in 1943-1944. Israel refused the request, and called it "nothing short of outrageous". Arad lied and denied the accusation, although they were based on Arad's own memoirs plus were confirmed with documents obtained from the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Center.
Now the liar is playing games with me. Where, been-there, did you get this bullshit?

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28178
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Gaschamberhoax.com

Post by Nessie »

Scott wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Do you condemn Hunt for lying in court?
I haven't actually read a trial transcript, just seen the same hostile newspaper articles on the subject.

But I am not facing prison either, nor having been in jail for months or years waiting for my day in court over having touched Elie Wiesel on the sleeve in an elevator and scaring him. The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is used to fawning praise, and probably does not often hear people calling him a liar to his face.

If a "Shock Jock" did some kind of outrageous publicity stunt he would have liability insurance and an army of hatchet-faced lawyers from his production company behind him, plus a media release contract to sign along with a barrel of cash ready to sate any hurt feelings.

I am not a big fan of plea-bargains, either, but the U.S. justice system is built around the idea. You are really screwed if you insist upon your innocence and then fail to convince a jury. The judges and prosecutors threaten to throw the book at you and they mean it; that is what they were elected to do. Public Defenders also get pelts on their belts for the number of jury trials that they can AVOID. That is how the system works.

I don't know how it is in Mr. Hunt's neck of the woods, but jail in Arizona is far worse than prison in Arizona. You'd best get a bond or something so that you can wait for your trial date at home or at least wearing the ankle monitor at home or whatever. A couple of years waiting for a trial date is optimistic, although you usually will get time off of your sentence for any pre-trial time served, but it really helps if you can look more respectable at your trial in the first place rather than like your mugshot, and that is much easier to do if you are out.

Hope Mom can mortgage the farm for my bail bondsman, too, because these bail bonds are usually set very, very high, especially if there is any indignation associated with the accusations at all, which is why and when a Grand Jury might be employed. That way shotgun assertions won't bite back politically on the police, the judge, and Prosecutor if one does prevail in a jury trial after all, a contingency that would almost guarantee a subsequent lawsuit. Good luck with that, though, because politicians elected for Public Safety are rated by how many tough-on-crime lawsuits they have pending against them, and this is actually an accomplishment for them. Handling the media carefully if possible regarding such high-profile stuff is important as well, and not necessarily easy for crime novices.

I don't know if Mr. Hunt lied or not--but denying accusations about witchcraft and having congress with the Devil is a no-win situation wherever these are crimes.

Even where it is not a political crime, Holocaust Denial--whatever that means--is a "thought" crime and a Hate Crime at best. So don't get a drunk driving ticket or run over anybody incriminating on your way to the God Hates Fags rally--not that we would ever do such a thing.

;)
So lying in court to avoid a prison sentence does not result in condemnation. But a one liner e-mail which is ambiguous does.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Ante Semitić
The Connoisseur
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:36 am
Location: In Da Komplex
Contact:

Re: Gaschamberhoax.com

Post by Ante Semitić »

Nessie wrote:
So lying in court to avoid a prison sentence does not result in condemnation. But a one liner e-mail which is ambiguous does.
Well, I am not sure he even lied. Can you prove that Eric lied in court? Maybe Eric just had a change of views, it does happen. In any case you must prove that he wilfully lied and that he did not just change his views, or stance, or whatever, on this issue.
Tactical sperm incoming! Run this way or die.
Sponsored by ‘Hackenholt Racing Engines’.
Live Young Or Die Trying
Ich bin was ich bin. Und das gedenke ich zu bleiben.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28178
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Gaschamberhoax.com

Post by Nessie »

generic wrote:
Nessie wrote:
So lying in court to avoid a prison sentence does not result in condemnation. But a one liner e-mail which is ambiguous does.
Well, I am not sure he even lied. Can you prove that Eric lied in court? Maybe Eric just had a change of views, it does happen. In any case you must prove that he wilfully lied and that he did not just change his views, or stance, or whatever, on this issue.
He told the court he did not deny the Holocaust and yet he has done so before and ever since the trial. Or did he change his views only at the point he spoke to the court? Is that credible?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests