๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,150 
|
Post by ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ on May 31, 2022 13:51:05 GMT
The question has been answered. Replies that ignore it and repeat the same question will be removed. Been-there has not answered my question about whether university history departments are part of running the hoax, or if the historians have been fooled by the hoax.
It is ironic that been-there is correctly complaining about the lack of open debate and how revisionists suffer censorship, in a thread where open debate is being censored and stifled.
|
|
๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ on Jun 1, 2022 9:21:11 GMT
Nessie wrote: Lots of people in the world are deluded or have contrary opinions. Flat earthers, the "we didn't go to the moon" crowd and pro and anti global warming claims. All of these controversies and more are openly and heatedly discussed in publications and media. Why is it that anyone who attempts to discuss the holyhoax is immediately vilified, threatened, loses their livelihood, is socially ostracized and in 19 countries, brought up on charges and sentenced to prison? Why must the holyhoax be protected from discussion? That is no delusion so how do you explain that? Flat earthers, moon landing hoaxers and climate change disbelievers do not attack a specific group of people based on their religion.
If a university academic starting to argue the earth was flat, they would likely lose their job. There was a lot of animosity between the different groups arguing over climate change causes. Holocaust deniers feed off anti-Semitic tropes of the Jews are all powerful, manipulative, dishonest and work together as one group. It is that anti-Semitism inherent in denial that causes some countries to ban it.
|
|
๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ on Jun 1, 2022 9:39:55 GMT
The point I raised in this post has not been dealt with. Oh boy! ๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ๐คช You are still trying to reduce an answer down to your own ignorant level. You are still applying a false dichotomy. Watch the clips. Read Manufacturing consent by Chomsky. Or remain in ignorance and continue arguing from a position of wilful ignorance. Iโm done with you. Historians have either been fooled into believing mass gassings took place and are victims of the hoax, or they know those gassings did not take place and are part of the hoax.
That is not a false dichotomy. There is no other option. There are no historians who have published works to say they are not sure if mass gassings happened or not. The vast majority say that they did happen. They must then either know that is not the case, or they have been hoaxed. Why are you unable to openly say whether they are victims of the hoax, or part of the hoax and discuss the issue around that?
How has it been possible to fool all the historians? Claim about mass deception and manipulation do not cut it, there is no credible way to fool all of those people. They have the most detailed knowledge of what happened, they have seen much of the evidence and to convince them mass gassings too place, would need the faking of huge amounts of evidence, without anyone noticing. It is not a realistic proposal. |
|
๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ on Jun 1, 2022 11:19:43 GMT
Been-there has repeatedly suggested historians are part of a mass deception;
Does been-there mean historians have been fooled by the hoax, with Irving being an exception, whereby he realised it was a hoax, tried to speak out and got shot down?
Or, are there historians who are part of the hoax, where they run the hoax and it is their job to keep other historians in line, hence their attacks on Irving?
Or, are all historians knowing promoting the hoax, and again, when someone like Irving splits rank, he has to be shot down?
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 1, 2022 12:16:39 GMT
Does been-there mean historians have been fooled by the hoax, with Irving being an exception, whereby he realised it was a hoax, tried to speak out and got shot down?
Or, are there historians who are part of the hoax, where they run the hoax and it is their job to keep other historians in line, hence their attacks on Irving?
Or, are all historians knowing promoting the hoax, and again, when someone like Irving splits rank, he has to be shot down?
It is pointless answering you if you REFUSE to read the answers, and refuse to watch the short video clips giving evidence of others giving replies that also answer the question. The answer in essence is explained by understanding how group psychology works. The experiments by Solomon Asch in group conformity also corroborate the answers I have given. Answers which you are in denial of to a literally insane degree. You are basically showing that it is YOU who are in denial in order to maintain an irrational belief. You are denying there is any group psychology involved. You are denying there are more than two simplified types of conformity. You are denying the writings and conclusions of experts on group consensus and |
|
๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ on Jun 1, 2022 14:14:09 GMT
All you do is link to evidence about how people can be thought controlled. That does not then act as evidence that historians have been thought controlled. It merely evidences it might be possible to do. You have presented no evidence that the thought control of the majority of historians has actually taken place. It is an incredible claim, so it needs incredible levels of evidence and you have none. You then dodge specific questions about the supposed thought control of historians, and how that is possible.
Are you claiming that David Irvine saw through the thought control?
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 1, 2022 15:48:20 GMT
All you do is link to evidence about how people can be thought controlled. That does not then act as evidence that historians have been thought controlled. It merely evidences it might be possible to do. You have presented no evidence that the thought control of the majority of historians has actually taken place. It is an incredible claim, so it needs incredible levels of evidence and you have none. You then dodge specific questions about the supposed thought control of historians, and how that is possible. Are you claiming that David Irvine saw through the thought control? Wow this further proves you have sanity issues! ๐ฎ The Asch experiment IS evidence!!!! That type of peer-pressure conformity is not an โincredible CLAIMโ you utter fool! It is empirical reality, proven many times over in empirical experiments! Holy moly! ๐ฎ๐๐คช I wager you still havenโt watched the Chomsky interview or the Irving (not Irvine, ๐คฆโโ๏ธ) clip. THE EVIDENCE millions of people conforming to a group belief has been demonstrated many, many times over. You are just in denial of it because you are irrationally and unintelligently attached to an irrational, fefuted belief-system. As has been explained to you before, millions of people for thousands of years believed a man was born of a virgin woman who grew up to be able to walk on water and turn it into wine amongst other fantastic things. THAT is EVIDENCE of group conformity amongst educated, intelligent people. You are in denial of that reality โ as well as other empirical realities such as commnality of cherry-red skin in fatal CO poisoning cases โ ONLY because you have a flawed narrative you insist on defending. |
|
๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ on Jun 1, 2022 16:25:33 GMT
All you do is link to evidence about how people can be thought controlled. That does not then act as evidence that historians have been thought controlled. It merely evidences it might be possible to do. You have presented no evidence that the thought control of the majority of historians has actually taken place. It is an incredible claim, so it needs incredible levels of evidence and you have none. You then dodge specific questions about the supposed thought control of historians, and how that is possible. Are you claiming that David Irvine saw through the thought control? Wow this further proves you have sanity issues! ๐ฎ No it does not. You are again questioning my sanity as a means to try to manipulate me into agreeing with you. You have evidenced peer-pressure conformity is an actual thing. You have not evidenced that it applies to all the historians who say there was a Holocaust that included mass gassings. I have not watched them, because you have failed to show that they offer any evidence that historians have been fooled into thinking mass gassings happened. You are merely showing how ignorant you are of evidencing. You have evidenced mass deception is possible. You have yet to evidence it applies to historians believing mass gassings took place, as part of the Holocaust. To do that, you first need to prove mass gassings did not happen and what happened instead. For that, you need contemporaneous evidence. The reason why I say it is not a mass deception, is because the evidence of what happened is significant and compelling. Historians, more than anyone else, have been to the archives, been to the camps, interviewed witnesses, read the documents and the archaeological reports and they find all that evidence leads to the conclusion gassings happened. It is not credible to claim all that evidence has been faked and the historians have been fooled by it. |
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 1, 2022 17:43:40 GMT
Wow this further proves you haveย sanity issues! ๐ฎ No it does not. You are again questioning my sanity as a means to try to manipulate me into agreeing with you. You have evidenced peer-pressure conformity is an actual thing. You have not evidenced that it applies to all the historians who say there was a Holocaust that included mass gassings. I have not watched them, because you have failed to show that they offer any evidence that historians have been fooled into thinking mass gassings happened. You are merely showing how ignorant you are of evidencing. You have evidenced mass deception is possible. You have yet to evidence it applies to historians believing mass gassings took place, as part of the Holocaust. To do that, you first need to prove mass gassings did not happen and what happened instead. For that, you need contemporaneous evidence. The reason why I say it is not a mass deception, is because the evidence of what happened is significant and compelling. Historians, more than anyone else, have been to the archives, been to the camps, interviewed witnesses, read the documents and the archaeological reports and they find all that evidence leads to the conclusion gassings happened. It is not credible to claim all that evidence has been faked and the historians have been fooled by it. The experiment proves people can be controlled by manipulation of external stimuli. Historians are people. Ergo they also can manipulated. Holocaust historians have either refused to research or have simply refused to face current research. Van Pelt and Pressac are excellent examples of serious incompetence. These are erstwhile intelligent men who decided to be incompetent despite ample opportunity to produce competent and compelling analysis. Therefore it is more likely on balance that they were conforming to the ignorant views of the crowd rather than to what the hard evidence told them. |
|
๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ on Jun 1, 2022 18:30:37 GMT
.... The experiment proves people can be controlled by manipulation of external stimuli. Historians are people. Ergo they also can manipulated. Where is the evidence they have been manipulated? Name a historian who has refused to research and prove they did no research. What research? I am not familiar with Van Pelt. Pressac found the evidence proved mass gassings at A-B. |
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 2, 2022 11:02:51 GMT
.... The experiment proves people can be controlled by manipulation of external stimuli. Historians are people. Ergo they also can manipulated. Where is the evidence they have been manipulated? Name a historian who has refused to research and prove they did no research. What research? I am not familiar with Van Pelt. Pressac found the evidence proved mass gassings at A-B. You are aware of Van Pelt. You've been at this for ten years. Pressac demonstrated pro found technical incompetence he has no excuse for. Except of course, that he was conforming to the crowd. |
|
๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ on Jun 2, 2022 11:23:26 GMT
Where is the evidence they have been manipulated? Name a historian who has refused to research and prove they did no research. What research? I am not familiar with Van Pelt. Pressac found the evidence proved mass gassings at A-B. You are aware of Van Pelt. You've been at this for ten years. Pressac demonstrated pro found technical incompetence he has no excuse for. Except of course, that he was conforming to the crowd. I am aware of Van Pelt, I am not familiar with what he claims. Pressac found documentary evidence that corroborates the witness claims. The Topf & Sons engineer statements and documents alone prove gas chambers inside the Kremas. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 2, 2022 12:27:00 GMT
.... Hall was given as evidence of how the H- hoax works, you imbecile! Proving again that you canโt understand simple arguments and need to constantly moving the goalposts to maintain your irration belief. The persecution of that academic by Jews from three Jewish organisations is PROOF that Jews do not want open debate. And they will attack, lie, smear, defame and demonise anyone who says anything they donโt like. Q1. Why would a genuine historiography need to do that? Q2. Why would Jewish organisations need to ruin a Professorโs careeer and falsely accuse him of โantisemitismโ for calling for honest debate? You didnโt make a mistake about who was condemning him. You did lie. And you are lying again now by denying that. You wrote something without knowing anything about Hallโs case. Yes, I made a mistake and commented on something that I knew nothing about. My mistake was to include Hall in with others who I knew more about, in a general conversation. I now know Hall does not apply. You admit I did not know, so you should be honest and accept it was a mistake. You have introduced Hall, as a way to dodge the topic, which the constant lying by deniers and revisionists that there is no evidence. You lied here; rodoh.freeforums.net/post/8538/thread"Extermination camps with no evidence of bodies, no cremains, no requisite areas of disturbed earth for collossal mass-graves" I replied, but that reply was moved to here; rodoh.info/post/8543/threadYou dodge being challenged about your lies, by trying to take this thread off topic about a mistake I made about Prof Hall. I did not know that Hall had been supported by other academics and the attacks came from others. So, my claim was a mistake, not a lie. I have admitted to and corrected my mistake, as that is the honest thing to do. You know that there is evidence from multiple sources, that there are large areas of disturbed ground at the AR camps and Chelmno. The witnesses who worked at the camps, aerial photos, circumstantial evidence and the post war archaeological surveys all evidence to prove the Nazis dug huge pits and cremated many bodies. So, you are lying that there is no evidence of mass graves.
My response was moved, to try and hide that you have lied, by stopping me from challenging your lie. By your definition, if you do not admit to your lie, you are clinically insane and need to seek help.
You bluffed and knowingly made a false claim about Hall without knowing anything about his case. That was a calculsted deception. The only โmistakeโ you made is that this further demonstrated how you invent โevidenceโ to support the holyhoax cause. Just stop lying and seek professional help! |
|
๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ on Jun 2, 2022 14:42:46 GMT
Yes, I made a mistake and commented on something that I knew nothing about. My mistake was to include Hall in with others who I knew more about, in a general conversation. I now know Hall does not apply. You admit I did not know, so you should be honest and accept it was a mistake. You have introduced Hall, as a way to dodge the topic, which the constant lying by deniers and revisionists that there is no evidence. You lied here; rodoh.freeforums.net/post/8538/thread"Extermination camps with no evidence of bodies, no cremains, no requisite areas of disturbed earth for collossal mass-graves" I replied, but that reply was moved to here; rodoh.info/post/8543/threadYou dodge being challenged about your lies, by trying to take this thread off topic about a mistake I made about Prof Hall. I did not know that Hall had been supported by other academics and the attacks came from others. So, my claim was a mistake, not a lie. I have admitted to and corrected my mistake, as that is the honest thing to do. You know that there is evidence from multiple sources, that there are large areas of disturbed ground at the AR camps and Chelmno. The witnesses who worked at the camps, aerial photos, circumstantial evidence and the post war archaeological surveys all evidence to prove the Nazis dug huge pits and cremated many bodies. So, you are lying that there is no evidence of mass graves.
My response was moved, to try and hide that you have lied, by stopping me from challenging your lie. By your definition, if you do not admit to your lie, you are clinically insane and need to seek help.
You bluffed and knowingly made a false claim about Hall without knowing anything about his case. That was a calculsted deception. The only โmistakeโ you made is that this further demonstrated how you invent โevidenceโ to support the holyhoax cause. My quotes about Hall; "I cannot find any link to what he actually argued. I only have secondary source claims that he was a "denier"." "Only Hall, from what I can find, disputes mass gassings took place, so he is the only "denier" of that." I now know that to be wrong and the secondary source made a false claim. "With regards to specifically what Nolte,Finkelstein, Hall, Hayward etc have done, and whether they deserve to also been criticised for spreading hate, I would need to go through each one individually." I make it clear I do not know anything about him and you get all upset when I say; "You repeatedly go on about academics, such as Hall, who have fallen foul of other academics and been condemned for their views." which again, turned out to be wrong and I have accepted that and stand corrected. You are using Hall to weasel dodge your constant lying that there is no evidence, when you KNOW there is. I made it clear I did not know about Hall, when you gave me a laundry list of people who have been criticised for their views on the Holocaust. It is common to make mistakes on a subject that previously is unknown and when going through the process of learning about it. You probably do not understand that, since you think you know everything anyway. It must any you that I am honest enough to admit to mistakes, when you will not admit to your downright lies, when you claim there is no evidence, when you know that there is. Stop lying that there is no evidence for mass gassings, graves and cremations. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 2, 2022 15:33:36 GMT
You bluffed and knowingly made a false claim about Hall without knowing anything about his case. That was a calculated deception. The only โmistakeโ you made is that this further demonstrated how you invent โevidenceโ to support the holyhoax cause. My quotes about Hall... "You repeatedly go on about academics, such as Hall, who have fallen foul of other academics and been condemned for their views."which again, turned out to be wrong and I have accepted that and stand corrected. You are using Hall to weasel dodge your constant lying that there is no evidence, when you KNOW there is.I used Professor Tony Hall to explain how the holocaust hoax works. It works by forbidding debate PLUS by intimidation/persecution of anyone โincluding academics โ who dare try to raise the obviously problematical core of the narrative and certain important details. You denied that occurs. So Prof. Hall was given as just one example of that. Prof. Nolte, Prof. Hayward, Dalton, Crowell and Weber are others. You are STILL dodging and denying that. THAT is dishonest. Hall is just a devastating proof of that Jewish misinformation, persecution, intimidation and POWER, which is presumably why you chose to lie about him with a false, unsubstantiated claim, despite not knowing anything about him. Q1. have you still not understood that his name came up as evidence of Jewish, tyrannical holyhoax thought-policing and control of the narrative? Q2. Or are you deliberately dodging and denying that out of dishonesty? Q3. Or is your mental problem not allowing you to admit either of the two above options because it would be too devastating to a delusional world-view you are desperately hanging on to? It is not common to pretend knowledge you donโt have! Nor to contradict and argue against subjects that in reality you are ignorant of. You are now deceitfully trying to take credit for admitting error, when the reality is you are dodging acknowledging your deceitful modus operandi.Something which you ALSO displayed by refusing to read or watch Bernays, Chomsky and Irving YET still continued to argue and pose literally stupid, ignorant questions in reply. Your deceitfulness appears to be an ingrained habit, as it is relentless. Something I suggest you also seek help with when/if you get time with a clinical psychologist. |
|
