Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on May 29, 2022 8:57:24 GMT
Nessie wrote: "...some have chosen to censor..." That claim is so ridiculous as to be laughably idiotic. The vast majority of websites won't touch the holyhoax with a barge pole and if someone expresses revisionist views in the comments sections they will be BANNED forever. Any website that references history, politics and related subjects will have numerous derogatory references to Hitler, the National Socialists (Nazis) and the holyhoax. Only on a few is any rebuttal to these references allowed. I fixed his ridicuolous sentence for him. ๐ You are not applying "normal historical revision" to the Holocaust. You are applying a series of pseudo-scientific and other ridiculous arguments from incredulity, that the vast majority of people can easily see are flawed, but you cannot.
Just because a witness describes something in a way you do not find believable, does not mean it did not happen and the witness has lied.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on May 29, 2022 9:06:28 GMT
Just because a witness describes something in a way you do not find believable, does not mean it did not happen and the witness has lied.
So this mantra repeats for the thousandths time; this poster offers nothing else which could support the potentially false witness claims except they might be true.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on May 29, 2022 9:27:01 GMT
Just because a witness describes something in a way you do not find believable, does not mean it did not happen and the witness has lied.
So this mantra repeats for the thousandths time; this poster offers nothing else which could support the potentially false witness claims except they might be true. You are trying to dodge the incredibleness of your claim, of such a massive conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on May 29, 2022 9:55:40 GMT
You are trying to dodge the incredibleness of your claim, of such a massive conspiracy. Emotive words like dodging, weasel dodging etc mean little. No one is making an incredible claim on this thread, but to discuss how the hoax, if it exists might work. I think the term Hoax is generalized to encompass a progression of accepted falsehoods.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 29, 2022 10:25:29 GMT
Again, moronic knee-jerk contradiction of the point. So strike 2. I am aware of NO televised or publicised fair debates about the holocaust mass-gassing hoax between rival experts. IOW, there have been to your knowledge, no televised debates that you think are fair. That way you can exclude the televised debates where deniers got trashed...IOW, the revisionists all got a good academic kicking, when exposed to expert argument, so you do not want to include those debates!!! Any revisionist who has presented themselves for debate, in whatever form of debate it has been, the revisionist has been thoroughly embarrassed. Ok, oh obstinate, hoaxed-one, list all these reasonably high-profile, main-stream media, televised or broadcast โholocaustโ debates between experts. That means not the pretence of serious, well-informed, fair debate that I have already mentioned. Obviously, you canโt list debates hosted by revisionists. Obviously not, as you will know doubt already understand. Because this is a topic-thread answering how the mass-gassing hoax works. And I have explained I believe it โworksโ by society forbidding open debate by well-informed experts from both sides of the argument. As I have explained that is what I condider the reality โ and given examples of the closest thing to genuine, high-profile debate that I know of โ you have to give examples that refute my contention (obviously). As you contradicted. Do you understand now? Er... that is how debate works. Did you not know that? Or did you think you could just say โ no it is not, no it is not. My side are best. Your argument is falseโ and that would suffice? As per usual, you instantly denied and contradicted that REALITY that I posited. So, NOW is the time for YOU to back up your knee-jerk contradiction with EVIDENCE! You remember what that is, I hope? You witter on so relentlessly that you have so much of it supporting your belief in the Jew-genocide by mass-gassing hoax. So let us finally see some of it. You have just made these bold, unsupported claims with personal accusations. So back-them up for a change with something more than just your say-so: 1. Show us evidence of the โ the televised debates where deniers got trashedโ that you claim I โexcludedโ. 2. Show us evidence of the debates arranged and promoted by holy-hoax believers where by โ... expert argumentโ you claim โ revisionists all got a good academic kickingโ and which you claim I โ do not want to includeโ.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on May 29, 2022 11:14:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 29, 2022 14:28:23 GMT
I fixed his ridicuolous sentence for him. ๐ You are not applying "normal historical revision" to the Holocaust. You are applying a series of pseudo-scientific and other ridiculous arguments from incredulity, that the vast majority of people can easily see are flawed, but you cannot. Erm, well, a so-called expert wrote that the โvast majority of peopleโ have no accurate idea of the Jewish experience during WW2. And on the previous version of RODOH you conceded that fact. Proving yet again that you are deceiving and changing your argument 180ยฐ whenever you want to contradict someone. David Cesarani admitted this: You once agreed to that. But now you contradict Cesarani and yourself. QUESTION: How do you explain your change of opinion? ... ... ... ... Incidentally, Cesarani wrote that he believed 900,000 to 960,000 Jews died/were murdered(?) at Auschwitz. He believed that 1,700,000 were Jews gassed to death at the โAktion Reinhardโ camps. And he believed that about 97,000 were gassed to death at Chelmno. So that is a total of approximately 2.7 million Jews who were supposedly gassed (2,757,000 to be precise). He estimated that around 1.5 million Jews were shot by the Einsatsgruppen. So his grand total of โholocaustโ deaths/murders is 4,200,000. And yet still TODAY Lady Diana Mosley is regarded as expressing โholocaust denialโ by stating she didnโt think a total of 6 million was conceivable? ๐ฎ๐ค It is quite insane! So... This is yet another example of how the holocaust hoax works: viz. even though it has Jewish historians that are promoted as holocaust experts and who publish rebuttals of some of the obviously exaggerated mythology, STILL the mythology is promoted unchanged to the ignorant masses.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on May 29, 2022 15:43:09 GMT
You are trying to dodge the incredibleness of your claim, of such a massive conspiracy. Emotive words like dodging, weasel dodging etc mean little. No one is making an incredible claim on this thread, but to discuss how the hoax, if it exists might work. I think the term Hoax is generalized to encompass a progression of accepted falsehoods.
Everyone who claims there was no Holocaust that involved the gassing of millions of people, is making an incredible claim. It is the single largest conspiracy claim ever.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on May 29, 2022 15:58:30 GMT
....Ok, oh obstinate, hoaxed-one, list all these reasonably high-profile, main-stream media, televised or broadcast โholocaustโ debates between experts. That means not the pretence of serious, well-informed, fair debate that I have already mentioned. The closest to a TV debate, were the various appearances of the likes of Smith, Cole and Shermer and others. I agree they were not particularly serious, as they were talk show question times. Obviously not, I am not aware of a revisionist hosted TV debate. There are plenty of ways a revisionist could get the truth out there. The majority of countries do not have denial laws. Sites like this function and could be used to promote the evidence as to what really happened, if there was any such evidence. I am talking about the low quality debates that the likes of David Cole was involved in. www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/03/david-stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist"...television appearances in the early 1990s. As a combative twentysomething with tousled black hair, he was a vilified guest on chat shows hosted by Phil Donahue, Montel Williams and Morton Downey, among others, and was depicted as a neo-Nazi on news shows such as 60 Minutes and 48 Hours. I am talking about the Holocaust Controversies website and their direct refutations of Mattogno and his replies on CODOH; holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search?q=Mattognocodoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=MattognoMattogno and others debated via their articles published there and at CODOH. There has been enough interaction between supposed denier experts and academics, to refute your suggestion open debate has been forbidden.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 29, 2022 17:18:05 GMT
....Ok, oh obstinate, hoaxed-one, list all these reasonably high-profile, main-stream media, televised or broadcast โholocaustโ debates between experts. That means not the pretence of serious, well-informed, fair debate that I have already mentioned. The closest to a TV debate, were the various appearances of the likes of Smith, Cole and Shermer and others. I agree they were not particularly serious, as they were talk show question times. Wow! ๐ฎ This is a truly epic fail, even by your abominably pathetic standards. First it was never specified it HAD to be a TV debate. It could have been online, on the radio, on a podcast, on social media, etc. It only had to be a fair, serious, genuine debate that was main-stream and between experts. And you have already claimed there have been โ plentyโ of such debates between well-informed experts. Q1. So which ones were you referring to? Q2. Or can you finally admit you LIED and are only here to lie, deceive and automatically contradict revisionist arguments that are devastating to the holy-hoax in order to be provocative? Oh boy! Another moronic miscomprehension of an extremely simple distinction. (Or is a it a dishonest attempt at moving the goalposts?) Either way, you are continuing with your epic fail. Wow! So just a quote from a newspaper. And it doesnโt even refer to fair โ debatesโ between experts. Instead it refers to chatshow appearances where Cole was โ vilifiedโ. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ We are not talking about online โ interactionโ on obscure websites that the general public donโt even know exist, you moron! [Holy moly! This guy is more dense than I thought).
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on May 29, 2022 17:46:59 GMT
been-there wrote:
Nah, he's just an expert at weasel dodging the issues. Look at how he dodges the issue of the impossibilities of his cremation claims.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on May 29, 2022 18:54:31 GMT
Been-there, you appear to have decided on a very narrow definition of debate, whereby only the most formal of debates, as one would find at university debating society. If that is your definition, then the only examples I know of, were two debates between FP Berg and Roberto Muhlencamp, on a radio show a few years back. They took the forum of each person presenting their argument and then follow-ups from points raised. codoh.com/library/document/online-radio-debates-on-revisionism/en/ I have given you various examples of less formal debates between both sides. You said about the supposed hoax, "I believe it โworksโ by society forbidding open debate by well-informed experts from both sides of the argument." Debate can take numerous forms, where each side challenges the other and then examines their arguments and evidence. Such examination of argument and evidence has been going on for decades. Debate can be banned, but the arguments and evidence from either side can still be assessed, because debate is not the only way to interact.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 29, 2022 20:24:29 GMT
Been-there, you appear to have decided on a very narrow definition of debate... No I havenโt. You got busted bluffing and lying. I made clear from the outset what type of debate I was referring to. The holocaust industry has outlawed fair, well-informed, genuine debate in most countries. They have done that TO PROTECT the mass-gassing Jew-genocide HOAX from being exposed as the racist, hate-promoting, anti-German hate-trope and exaggerated deception that it is!!!!! It makes sure nothing like real โdebateโ ever occurs in main-stream media. You got caught lying and instead of owning it you are again using dishonest tactics. It is pathetic and disgusting. You have been shown YET again to be arguing and contradicting and making bogus claims that you canโt substantiate. You have been shown YET again to be doing that without even comprehending what it is that you are knee-jerk contradicting. So do yourself a favour, stop denying reality! The mass-gassing Jew-genocide hoax is maintained by making sure no genuine debate in front of the mass public ever occurs. You know that is true. THAT is why you canโt name a single high-profile main-stream debate between experts from either side! Not one! As things stand no academic would dare refute the bogus narrative, as it means career-suicide and no life! That is precisely why Crowell [Allan B. Kennady] and Dalton used pseudonyms to put the revisionist case. That is why Mark Weber is banned from the UK on bogus charges and constantly has to fight Paypal to receive payments. So admit it finally. The H-narrative doesnโt want the masses to ever see a genuine, fair debate. Stop lying about that.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on May 29, 2022 20:44:22 GMT
Everyone who claims there was no Holocaust that involved the gassing of millions of people, is making an incredible claim. It is the single largest conspiracy claim ever. The death of a single person is enough to make the claim of genocide; this begs the question of how many people does it need murdered to make a holocaust? Within that question would the deaths of invalids from 14f13 be enough to classed as holocaustian? Is it possible that the untimely demise of thousands of elderly people being taken away to cross the rainbow bridge be enough to qualify as a holocaust, especially if it is Jews who were given the "special treatment"? Is it possible that frightened people assumed that these aktions were all encompassing involving more people than were actually shot; if so this would take on a cult like status, similar to every religion world wide where every action, every event was seen as confirming some bias held by the believer. Discussing what appears to be "death worship" of cult proportions is what appears to be happening. There are a trillion dots to join which can be joined in any manner the believers wish; the truth is irrelevant, just the belief; so long as the dots make the star of david and a gas chamber the magi are happy. The largest conspiracy is not the holocaust but the belief in religion; I think Richard Dawkins might agree with this one. The holocaust is just part of judaism, the same bogus religion that started Christianity and Islam. The holocaust. is just another horse of the apocalypse.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 30, 2022 7:53:52 GMT
This is how the mass-deception works: by understanding the mechanisms of group identity and group thinking and then applying that through mass-media channels. This is how manipulating and controlling majority opinion is achieved in a whole hosts of areas. And this manipulation of the mechanisms of group-thinking has very clearly been applied to WW2 history โ especially the elevation of the Jewish experience and suffering within the accepted narrative of that global mass-carnage. Edward Bernays and โgroup psychologyโ: manipulating the masses โThe conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard ofโฆ ...In almost every act of our daily lives โ whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking โ we are dominated by the relatively small number of personsโฆ who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.โ ~~ Propaganda, by Edward Bernays This passage was written by Edward Bernays, the Jewish nephew of Sigmund Freud and a pioneering mind behind advertising, modern propaganda and the field of public relations. Bernaysโ influence was enormous. Relying heavily on the insights of his uncle, he developed highly successful manipulation techniques which are still used today not only by companies to sell consumer products, but also by the powers that be to โcontrol and regiment the massesโ....Beginning in the late 19th century, a number of thinkers, most notably Freud and Gustave Le Bon, attempted to understand why people engage in group-identification and how group identification affects oneโs mind and behaviour. As Bernays noted, the insights that emerged from this study caught the attention of those in positions of power who wanted to expand their control of societies. These people saw the potential of taking the theoretical insights of group psychology and transforming them into practical methods that could be used to manipulate the masses from outside of the publicโs eye โ a task which formed the basis of Bernaysโ work in public relations. As Bernays explained in his book Propaganda: โThe systematic study of mass psychology revealedโฆ the potentialities of invisible government of society, by manipulation of the motives which actuate man in the groupโฆ [these studies] established that the group has mental characteristics distinct from those of the individual, and is motivated by impulses and emotions which cannot be explained on the basis of what we know of individual psychology. So the question naturally arose: If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?โ
academyofideas.com/2017/07/edward-bernays-group-psychology-manipulating-the-masses/
|
|