Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

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).
Werd
Posts: 10181
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

Post by Werd »

TreesAreGreen wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:23 pm
David Irving, David Cole, etc, have all admitted that the Holocaust happened.
David Cole is a revisionist about Auschwitz and Majdanek. But NOT about the AR camps in the east. It's in his book Republican Party Animal.

David Irving is in the same boat. He once linked to the holocaust controversies pdf of their "white paper" on his website. So he apparently admits the 'holocaust by bullets.' Although in the 90's he was talking a big game about the non-existence of Auschwitz and Majdanek gas chambers for people. If he has changed his tune about Auschwitz, that is news to me.


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


Jeffk1970
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

Post by Jeffk1970 »

been-there wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:19 am
I suspect that Jeff/Loog/Corey/whoever* and Nessie share sock-puppet accounts. This account TreesAreGreen is registered in San Francisco. Yet its 3.00 am there. So I suspect this is Nessie writing from Scotland where it is mid day. Presumably Jeff — or whover created the account in California — will take over later.
I don’t live in California.

:twisted:

Been-there, how many times do I have to tell you?

If I have a sock puppet here...which I may...or may not...then this sock puppet will not share any characteristics with me. This is something you failed miserably when you tried to set up a sock puppet at Skeptics and failed miserably. I had you pegged by your second post.

But I am concerned about something. Why are you releasing details about where this account is originating?

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 7615
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

Post by Huntinger »

Jeffk1970 wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:47 pm
If I have a sock puppet here...which I may...or may not...then this sock puppet will not share any characteristics with me. This is something you failed miserably when you tried to set up a sock puppet at Skeptics and failed miserably. I had you pegged by your second post.

But I am concerned about something. Why are you releasing details about where this account is originating?
This thread is not about how many sock accounts you have, though it is suspected more than a few both here and at Klowns.
Did Irving really change his mind or did he just reach another conclusion based on his research.? That is the point of interest. I am not worried about Hunt who appears as disturbed as Roberto. Mr Irving is entitled to form a conclusion based on his work as we all do. It gives a perspective for people to judge. A wrong conclusion does not invalidate all of his work; he may be basing conclusions based on faulty Soviet planted evidence or something else equally obscure.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

Amt IV

Turnagain
Posts: 8322
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

Post by Turnagain »

Huntinger wrote:
A wrong conclusion does not invalidate all of his work; he may be basing conclusions based on faulty Soviet planted evidence or something else equally obscure.
Just maybe his "conclusions" could be based on getting out of gaol, too. That can be a powerful motivator especially when tied to an enforceable NDA. Money and the threat of punishment, the banana and the stick, can do wonders to change anyone's viewpoint. One must look at those very practical reasons for someone doing a 180 degree reversal of previously held convictions.

Jeffk1970
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

Post by Jeffk1970 »

Huntinger wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:43 pm

If I have a sock puppet here...which I may...or may not...then this sock puppet will not share any characteristics with me. This is something you failed miserably when you tried to set up a sock puppet at Skeptics and failed miserably. I had you pegged by your second post.

But I am concerned about something. Why are you releasing details about where this account is originating?

This thread is not about how many sock accounts you have,
Maybe you should mention this to been-there. He brought it up.

Or is your complaining only for me?
though it is suspected more than a few both here and at Klowns.
Let me help you .

None at Skeptics, I only post as myself. Here? Maybe I do. Maybe I don’t.

I’m afraid you’ll have to figure that out on your own.
Did Irving really change his mind or did he just reach another conclusion based on his research.? That is the point of interest.
As of 2016 Irving no longer denies the Holocaust. There’s a video of him speaking at some conference where he estimates 5-6 million died. Unfortunately YouTube deleted it so I no longer have it saved.

Take it for what it’s worth. If nothing else David Irving is a competent researcher so it this does not surprise me.

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 7615
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

Post by Huntinger »

Jeffk1970 wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:21 am
As of 2016 Irving no longer denies the Holocaust. There’s a video of him speaking at some conference where he estimates 5-6 million died. Unfortunately YouTube deleted it so I no longer have it saved.

Take it for what it’s worth. If nothing else David Irving is a competent researcher so it this does not surprise me.
Mr Irving is out by a huge factor although many perished of Malaria in the Pripyat swamps, typhus and other war related conditions; however, they are not alone. It is just that they like to single themselves out as being special, different, worthy of attention and of course shekels.
Considering their links with the Soviets, especially the NKVD, the atrocities inflicted on local populations I am surprised all of them were not snuffed by the local populations, especially the Ukrainian National movement. It is well know the Latvian and Lithuanian polizei did a good job on extracting revenge. Sadly the SS got the credit, undeserved.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

Amt IV

Werd
Posts: 10181
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

Post by Werd »

Jeffk1970 wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:21 am
As of 2016 Irving no longer denies the Holocaust. There’s a video of him speaking at some conference where he estimates 5-6 million died. Unfortunately YouTube deleted it so I no longer have it saved.

Take it for what it’s worth. If nothing else David Irving is a competent researcher so it this does not surprise me.
Did he deny the Auschwitz gas chambers yes or no? Did he affirm them, thus going back on his stance that he held in the 1990's?

Turnagain
Posts: 8322
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

Post by Turnagain »

Taken from a post at CODOH. Here is the hierarchy of evidence:
1. Laws of nature – If someone contradicts the laws of nature, it did not happen. For something to have happened, it must first be possible. Simple

2. Common sense - If something makes absolutely no sense, it probably did not happen. For example, someone claims they avoided the gas chamber many times by being the 201st person in line but it only fit 200. That's just silly

3. Physical/material evidence - If someone says "Below my feet is a mass grave of 10,000 people" and then we dig and find nothing, it is not true. Even if 10 people agree with him, it just is not there

4. Documents - documents are generally more reliable than testimony, but even documents can be faked/forged: something the Soviets were notorious for. So when looking at them we must keep this in mind. Also, documents can be destroyed (both incriminating and exonerating) so relying solely on documents is problematic, but they do in general have more weight than testimony.

5. Neutral testimony - testimony of someone who has no skin in the game. A person who can not benefit or lose out no matter what they say. These people can lie, but are less likely to

6. Party testimony - a victim, a perpetrator, a prisoner, a vengeful enemy. These sorts of testimonies are the weakest forms of evidence imaginable. A victim or enemy may lie just for revenge. A perpetrator may lie just to seem innocent, and that may be denial or a "Yes it happened but I couldn’t stop it!" confession (whether you consider that a "confession" is a matter of semantics). A prisoner’s testimony is also very weak because he may just be saying whatever he thinks will get him out of jail.


It should be noted that the claims for the Krema 1 being a gas chamber violate the first two rules of evidence. There is no Prussian blue staining of the walls and there's no explanation for the irregularly spaced Zyklon introduction holes. Of course the rules of evidence, the concepts of physical laws and common sense, have no relevance to Nessie or other hoaxers.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:23 am
Taken from a post at CODOH. Here is the hierarchy of evidence:
1. Laws of nature – If someone contradicts the laws of nature, it did not happen. For something to have happened, it must first be possible. Simple

2. Common sense - If something makes absolutely no sense, it probably did not happen. For example, someone claims they avoided the gas chamber many times by being the 201st person in line but it only fit 200. That's just silly

3. Physical/material evidence - If someone says "Below my feet is a mass grave of 10,000 people" and then we dig and find nothing, it is not true. Even if 10 people agree with him, it just is not there

4. Documents - documents are generally more reliable than testimony, but even documents can be faked/forged: something the Soviets were notorious for. So when looking at them we must keep this in mind. Also, documents can be destroyed (both incriminating and exonerating) so relying solely on documents is problematic, but they do in general have more weight than testimony.

5. Neutral testimony - testimony of someone who has no skin in the game. A person who can not benefit or lose out no matter what they say. These people can lie, but are less likely to

6. Party testimony - a victim, a perpetrator, a prisoner, a vengeful enemy. These sorts of testimonies are the weakest forms of evidence imaginable. A victim or enemy may lie just for revenge. A perpetrator may lie just to seem innocent, and that may be denial or a "Yes it happened but I couldn’t stop it!" confession (whether you consider that a "confession" is a matter of semantics). A prisoner’s testimony is also very weak because he may just be saying whatever he thinks will get him out of jail.


It should be noted that the claims for the Krema 1 being a gas chamber violate the first two rules of evidence. There is no Prussian blue staining of the walls and there's no explanation for the irregularly spaced Zyklon introduction holes. Of course the rules of evidence, the concepts of physical laws and common sense, have no relevance to Nessie or other hoaxers.
The lack of staining can be explained by irregular use as a gas chamber, so not enough exposure to cause staining and the holes explained either the Germans not spacing the holes regularly or the Poles during the reconstruction changing what they found.

You need to apply the 1-6 hierarchy of evidence to your claim that the Nazis were able to transport, feed, clothe and accommodate millions of Jews you claim had not been gassed, without leaving any evidence of that happening. If you do that honestly, you will admit it was not possible and it did not happen.

That means you need to re-examine your reasons for disbelieving the evidence for gassings and use of logical fallacies. Deniers who have done that, such as Eric Hunt, have then realised they were wrong and denial is a hoax they had fallen for.
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
Huntinger
Posts: 7615
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Why have so many former Holocaust revisionists later admitted that the Holocaust happened?

Post by Huntinger »

Turnagain wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:23 am
It should be noted that the claims for the Krema 1 being a gas chamber violate the first two rules of evidence. There is no Prussian blue staining of the walls and there's no explanation for the irregularly spaced Zyklon introduction holes. Of course the rules of evidence, the concepts of physical laws and common sense, have no relevance to Nessie or other hoaxers.
The reasons for this is that they were never used for a gaskammer, though they were deloused or disinfested like all buildings from time to time. There was a report from Germar of a church with one application of Zb and it turned almost smurf blue.
The poster you are communicating with has a love of death by gaskammer, even though that is thoroughly debunked. If he wishes to think of Irene defecating diamonds and people scratching walls, that is his issue, but does not go forward.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

Amt IV

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 18 guests