The holocaust and revisionists

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

And instead I should rely on VHO.org? :rolleyes:

Do you read what I post at all? I said

"You should be wary of relying on HHP and Nizkor alone for your information about this topic."

Ideally one should study the sources and then both sides of the debate.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

All faked? I never said that and neither does anyone else. Some documents can be shown to be Soviet forgers or falsifications of real documents, others, indeed most, are genuine.

So if you agree that the Nazis themselves produced documents describing the gassing of prisoners in their concentration camps, why are we having this discussion? Were the Nazis themselves part of the Jewish conspiricy?

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

So if you agree that the Nazis themselves produced documents describing the gassing of prisoners in their concentration camps, why are we having this discussion?

This is pathetic, I said no such thing. I said some of the German documents of this event are geuine (most) and some are faked or falsified in some way. What do you hope to achieve with such foolish red-herrings?
Btw, there are no German documents that describe the gassing of prisoners in Auschwitz or any other camp.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

This is pathetic, I said no such thing. I said some of the German documents of this event are geuine (most) and some are faked or falsified in some way. What do you hope to achieve with such foolish red-herrings?
Btw, there are no German documents that describe the gassing of prisoners in Auschwitz or any other camp.

Yes there are, I just showed you them.

robindch

A brief note -- it turns out that Jess Weise, the kid who blew away nine people in a school yesterday in Minnesota, was a Nazi sympathizer and a poster on http://www.nazi.org, the website of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party who, yesterday, released a public statement of breathtaking hypocrisy, washing their hands of any blame and claiming that "such events are to be expected". Though now removed from the LNSG's website, some of Weise's postings are still available in Google's cache, at this location, though they'll probably disappear from there soon.

While arguably off-topic, I'm, nonetheless, posting this in case anybody has any doubt about the warming effect of publicly-expressed, and publicly-available, pro-Nazi sympathies upon the society's derelicts.

- robin.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Germar Rudolf on the other hand is a chemist and I notice you steer clear of him.

Rudolfs report contradicts Leuchter report. They can't both be right. In fact Rudolf has said himself that his report does not prove or disprove that there were gas chambers. That is even before you ignore the flaws in his report. Even if his report was 100% it is not, by his own admission, proof there were no gas chambers

Eriugena wrote:

He is an expert on execution technology and has acted as a consultant to various US penal institutions in this respect.

Actually he lied about this. He claimed to have a professional relationship with the N.C State Prision system, which they deny. They can barely remember talking to him and that was only when he was trying to sell them something.

Q: And he consults you in regard to those matters?

A: He does.

Eriugena wrote:

not permitted to give expert testimony a court case.

That is because he wasn't an expert. He claimed he was an expert. That was a lie.

Turley

Obni wrote:

Entering "government controlled media" into a search engine produces 3,210,000 hits: a fairly crowded wilderness.

Your search is too general. Perhaps you do not know what you are looking for.

Obni wrote:

I appreciate your trying to point out the dangers of accepting mass media output at face value, but I've slogged through enough Chomsky, Ignatieff, etc..., to need further enlightenment on that topic. With that in mind I would point out that Western society tolerates the diverse dissenting voices of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Russ Kick and Mark Thomas, and broadcasts the work of John Pilger and Adam Curtis on mainstream media, we are hardly at 1984 levels of mind-control ... just yet.

I mean no disrespect. But we are all easily fooled, as any magician can attest. Well publicized dissent may only be the appearance of dissent and not actual dissent.

Consider Howard Zinn's book, "A People's History of the United States 1492-Present." The violent deaths of President Lincoln, James Forrestal, President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Robert F. Kennedy and Vincent Foster are not mentioned. Zinn's history is missing something. Zinn wrote, "Putting aside the wild accusations against Roosevelt (that he knew about Pearl Harbor...or deliberately provoked the Pearl Harbor raid--these are without evidence..." Zinn never strays from the official "truth" on the significant events, and yet Zinn's popular fault is only his harmless "liberal bias."

Chomsky is another dissenter who also plays the leftist role. The left versus the right is standard for acceptable "critics" but ALL these critics on both the left and the right AGREE Lee Harvey Oswald shot President John F. Kennedy and 19 terrorists attacked the USA on 9/11. The "dissenter" Chomsky pulls his punches on these events or the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. Serious high level corruption is where Naom will not roam. For more on Chomsky see:
Chomsky the fraud http://www.dcdave.com/article4/010318a.html
and Chomsky the Fraud Pt 2
http://www.dcdave.com/article4/010406.html

A Chomsky Dissenter

When I trusted Noam Chomsky
I had a cozy home.
With my academic friends
I did not feel alone.

I liked his doughty dissidence;
At least I thought him bold.
And he helped me see beyond
The daily lies we're told.

Then I saw he stayed away
From major mysteries
Like a student of the woods
Who won't go near the trees.

Now the trees are falling down
And crushing all we see,
And all the Chomskyites can do
Is run away from me.

-David Martin

When you can see past Chomsky you eyes will be wide open. It is a liberating experience.

Obni wrote:

As for being branded a 'conspiracy nut' (or the wonderfully fluid 'conspiraloon') and losing friends and fortune, remember your Ecclesiates "the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard."

I have found the truth in the Scriptures. The genius and atheist Bertrand Russell wrote:

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."

Compare Russell's words with the words you offered from KCF:

"You examine the claims, place tentative value judgements on their plausibility. You examine the background of the people making the claims to attempt to figure out if they have an ulterior motive for making the claims. You examine the mechanisms by which they claim the truth is being suppressed and similarly attempt to apply rationality to them."

Obni wrote:

If there is no guarantee of truth from any source, then you must simply rely on informed judgement and common sense.

I have found it is easier to determine what is false, Chomsky for example. I do not think there is no guarantee of truth from any source. IF there is a God, defined as infinite and all powerful, He would neither deceive nor be deceived. My informed judgement and common sense accepts Him as the source of truth.

Some prefer men and science as the source of truth. We will believe what we desire.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Rudolfs report contradicts Leuchter report

. What contradictions have you got in mind? Could you be more precise?

They can't both be right. In fact Rudolf has said himself that his report does not prove or disprove that there were gas chambers

No, he didn't say that, he said, quite rightly, that chemical evidnece alone does not disprove gas chambers. The way it works is as follows. There are various testimonies that make claims about homocidal gassings in Auschwitz using the pesticide Zyklon B. These testimonies allege things that are disproved by the chemical evidence, for example a gassing that takes four minutes. This is simply impossible under the conditions described. Z-B cannot discharge gas at that speed, to the extent alleged in the time etc, etc. So chemical evidence alone does not prove or disprove gas chambers, it is this kind of evidence used in combination with the other kinds that contribute to a truer picture of what those structures were used for.

That is even before you ignore the flaws in his report.

Let's discuss the flaws if that is your view.

Even if his report was 100% it is not, by his own admission, proof there were no gas chambers

Read what he says about thisl; I have given a brief summary.

Actually he lied about this. He claimed to have a professional relationship with the N.C State Prision system, which they deny. They can barely remember talking to him and that was only when he was trying to sell them something.

This is all according to Nizkor. I wouldn't accept anything they say; they have distorted things and lied about their sources of fudning. If you can come up with indendependent corroboration that would be nice. How about looking at the transcripts of the trial?

Bill Armontrout, for example, supervisor of executions for the State of Missouri disagreed, on the stand at the 1988 retrial he had a different view of Leuchter than the one pushed by Nizkor.

Leuchter was permitted to give evidence at the trial but not as an 'expert' in the strictly legal sense.

That is because he wasn't an expert. He claimed he was an expert.

He is an expert in his field. But because he is not a registeerd engineer he could not be classed as an expert witness. The contention was that he was not an engineer. But then most practising engineers in the US are not registered engineers.

That was a lie.

Nizkor lie routinely about revisionism.

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

KCF: I would be happy to look at a list of say the top 10 historians you claim support holocaust denial.

Eriugena: O.k. try these for starters - Paul Rassinier, Robert Faurisson, Carlo Mattogno. We can come back to some more later. Incidentally no one knows more about Auschwitz than Mattogno.

You dishonestly ignored the names I supplied you with settling instead for people that you brought into the discussion.

You've quoted somebody else, attached my name to it and then accused me of 'dishonesty'. What a mastermind.

The quote that you included was from somebody else - during a period when I was otherwise occupied and was sadly unable to indulge in your wisdom.

So getting back to your point, I've already dealt with Rassinier more than adequately. If I get time, I'll respond to the two new candidates. Or I might paint my toenails.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

. What contradictions have you got in mind? Could you be more precise? No, he didn't say that, he said, quite rightly, that chemical evidnece alone[/B] does not disprove gas chambers. The way it works is as follows. There are various testimonies that make claims about homocidal gassings in Auschwitz using the pesticide Zyklon B. These testimonies allege things that are disproved by the chemical evidence, for example a gassing that takes four minutes. This is simply impossible under the conditions described. Z-B cannot discharge gas at that speed, to the extent alleged in the time etc, etc. So chemical evidence alone does not prove or disprove gas chambers, it is this kind of evidence used in combination with the other kinds that contribute to a truer picture of what those structures were used for.

But again, that doesn't dispove gas chambers. It disproves that the person was killed in 4-5 minutes.

It is the assumption that because the exact details that Jews give about the gassing are incorrect, they must be lying about the gassing in the first place. That assumption is not backed up by chemical evidence. In fact it is contradicted by the chemical evidence. The assumption comes from the idea that their exisits a conspiricy, therefore they must be lying. It is a cyclic proof. When Jews say there were gas chambers they are lying, because there exists a conspiricy to defraud the world, and because there is a conspiricy testemony from Jews is lies.

The line seems to go like this. Chemical evidence shows that there were chambers where Zyklon B were used. The Jews and the Nazi's documentation both say they were used to gas people. But because of the assumption that all the Jews are lying, and all the Nazi documentation is fake, we must assume that the truth is the opposite of what they said. QED, there were no gas chambers.

Can you not see the flaw in that logic?

Eriugena wrote:

How about looking at the transcripts of the trial?

That was the transcript of the trial. If you have some non-fake transcript please post it up here.

Eriugena wrote:

Bill Armontrout, for example, supervisor of executions for the State of Missouri disagreed, on the stand at the 1988 retrial he had a different view of Leuchter than the one pushed by Nizkor.

Did Bill Armontrout work for either the State of North Caroline or the State of California during the time Leuchter claimed he was being consulted for his expert opinion?

Eriugena wrote:

Leuchter was permitted to give evidence at the trial but not as an 'expert' in the strictly legal sense.

In the sense that he wasn't an expert. Anyone can give evidence in a trial. It doesn't mean he knew about what he was talking about. I could give evidence in a trial about rocket propulsion, but if I claimed to know what I was talking about, that wouldn't be allowed.

Eriugena wrote:

He is an expert in his field.

He is not an expert in his field, that is why he was not allowed to give evidence as an expert in his field. As far as I can tell I can't find anywhere where it says he has any formal training in chemistry at all.

Eriugena wrote:

Nizkor lie routinely about revisionism.

Yes yes, I forgot .. massive Jewish conspiricy ... all the testmonies are made up, all the documentation is fake .. everything is a lie ... etc etc

Turley

robindch wrote:

A brief note -- it turns out that Jess Weise, the kid who blew away nine people in a school yesterday in Minnesota, was a Nazi sympathizer and a poster on http://www.nazi.org,

Who funds and runs this operation and for what purpose?

FWIW a search of the domain name yields:

Domain ID: D1267815-LROR
Domain Name:NAZI.ORG
Created On:17-Aug-1997 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:12-Jan-2005 14:22:16 UTC
Expiration Date:16-Aug-2006 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:The NameIT Corporation dba NameServices.net (R232-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:AITorgORG6984
Registrant Name:anon host
Registrant Organization:Anonhost
Registrant Street1:PMB 291 1474 North Point Village Center
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Reston
Registrant State/Province:VA
Registrant Postal Code:20194-1190
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.9103211375
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:admin@anonhost.org
Admin ID:AITorgADM6984
Admin Name:anon host
Admin Organization:Anonhost
Admin Street1:PMB 291 1474 North Point Village Center
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Reston
Admin State/Province:VA
Admin Postal Code:20194-1190
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.9103211375
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:admin@anonhost.org

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

There is also documentation describing the gas chambers as "gassing cellers"
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/19430129-vergasungskeller/

The remaining documents I'll take all these one at a time starting with this one.

Here is a translation of the document as it appears at HHP:

Except for some minor construction work, Krematorium II was finished by working with all our available forces day and night, despite inexpressible difficulties and freezing weather. The ovens were fired in the presence of the senior engineer Prüfer of the executing firm, Topf and Sons, Erfurt, and they are working faultlessly. The reinforced concrete ceiling of the morgue could not yet be eliminated due to the freezing weather. However, this is not significant, as the gassing cellar can be used for this purpose.

Due to the railway car prohibition, the company Topf and Sons could not deliver the aeration and deaeration equipment at the time demanded by the Zentralbauleitung. After the aeration and deaeration equipment arrive, however, installation will begin immediately, so that presumably by February 20, 1943, it will be completely ready for operation. Enclosed find a report of the inspecting engineer of the firm of Topf and Sons.

Now it is the opinon of some, including Pressac (anti-revisionist) that this document is a fake.
The problem is that this letter contradicts another of the same time

On page 210 of his book, Professor Robert van Pelt publishes part of a letter, supposedly written by Bischoff to his superior, Hans Kammler, in Berlin announcing the operationability of Krema II at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
What is surprising is that in such a relatively important letter and in the small segment shown, there are 3 spelling errors:

Nachbetrieb instead of Nachtbetrieb
funtionieren instead of funktionieren
Die instead of Dies
The other surprising thing about this letter is that its date, 29 January 1943, is the same as that of the Tomitschek/Swoboda note on the electricals for Krema II.

Bischoff states in his letter that the ovens were started up and performed well; on the other hand the Tomitschek/Swoboda note states that the electricals needed another two weeks to be connected , one wonders how the ovens worked without the blowers for the forced draft.

Thomas Dunskus
8, route de Biac
F-33760 Faleyras
Tel.: + 33 - (0)5 56 23 66 12

Now these two letters (Tomitschek/Swoboda and the Bischof letter) flatly contradict each other.

There's more.

On January 29, 1943, Engineer Kurt Prüfer of the Topf firm inspected the
sites of the four Birkenau crematoria and wrote a test report, in which he noted the following regarding crematorium II:
“This building complex is structurally completed except for minor secondary
work (due to frost, ceiling of the corpse cellar can not yet be cut
out.) The 5 three-muffle cremation furnaces are ready and at present are
being dry heated. The delivery of the ventilation unit for the corpse cellar
was delayed as a result of the suspension on railway cars, so that the in-
stallation can take place no sooner than 10 days from now. Therefore the
start of operation of crematorium II is certainly possible on February 15,
43.”

Carlo Mattogno Special Treatment in Auschwitz pp. 88-9

The term 'Vergassung' in itself has no suspicious connotation. The known contexts in which it emerges are fumigation and carburration.

Another problem emerges in that it is not clear what is meant by this; "The reinforced concrete ceiling of the morgue could not yet be eliminated due to the freezing weather. However, this is not significant, as the gassing cellar can be used for this purpose."
Why do they want to 'elminate' the ceiling of the morgue? And "the Vergasungskeller could be used for this purpose" What purpose?
It is not clear what this letter is actually about, even if we take it as authentic.

KCF

I have found it is easier to determine what is false, Chomsky for example.

Chomsky is 'false'? Is he having some sort of existentialist crisis? Or are you saying that everything that he has ever written or said is false - pray tell what is your easy trick to determine such things?

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

But again, that doesn't dispove gas chambers. It disproves that the person was killed in 4-5 minutes.

Which means you lose a witness. I fact you lose just about all of them, because each of them testifies to things that are not possible and their stories do not cohere with each other on signifcant points.

It is the assumption that because the exact details that Jews give about the gassing are incorrect, they must be lying about the gassing in the first place.

Why do you pick on the Jews here? We must include all the testimonies, that includes SS men.

That assumption is not backed up by chemical evidence.

The chemical evidence deals their testimonies a fatal blow - that is why the exterminationists are left with Kula.

In fact it is contradicted by the chemical evidence. The assumption comes from the idea that their exisits a conspiricy, therefore they must be lying.

There is no such assumption. Some witnesses are undoubtedly lying, others are confused and there are other explanations for why people testify to things

It is a cyclic proof. When Jews say there were gas chambers they are lying, because there exists a conspiricy to defraud the world, and because there is a conspiricy testemony from Jews is lies.

This is desparate stuff. You are so anxious to impute antisemitism, I presume because you cannot deal with the evidence itself.

The line seems to go like this. Chemical evidence shows that there were chambers where Zyklon B were used.

Yes, the delousing chambers; no one disputes that.

The Jews and the Nazi's documentation both say they were used to gas people.

The documentation does not say that, some witnesses say that, both Jewish and SS.

But because of the assumption that all the Jews are lying, and all the Nazi documentation is fake, we must assume that the truth is the opposite of what they said. QED, there were no gas chambers.

This is such a strawman and, it has o be said, quite a dishonest one at that.

Can you not see the flaw in that logic?

I can of course, but its your logic, your strawman argument.

That was the transcript of the trial. If you have some non-fake transcript please post it up here.

And what did it say which is proved incorrect?

Did Bill Armontrout work for either the State of North Caroline or the State of California during the time Leuchter claimed he was being consulted for his expert opinion?

I have told you already; something other than Nizkor if you don't mind.

In the sense that he wasn't an expert. Anyone can give evidence in a trial. It doesn't mean he knew about what he was talking about.

Wrong. He gave evidence becasue he had soemthing to say about the manner in which samples were collected etc.

I could give evidence in a trial about rocket propulsion, but if I claimed to know what I was talking about, that wouldn't be allowed.

You are becoming more and more desperate.

He is not an expert in his field, that is why he was not allowed to give evidence as an expert in his field.

He is an expert but not in the sense that would qualify him as an expert witness in a Canadian court.

As far as I can tell I can't find anywhere where it says he has any formal training in chemistry at all.

Another strawman cum red-herring. Who has ever claimed that Leuchter has any expertise in chemistry? The chemistry was done by a labaoratory. Leuchter spoke about the collection of samples.

Turley

KCF wrote:

Or are you saying that everything that he has ever written or said is false - pray tell what is your easy trick to determine such things?

I did not say everything he has ever written is false. It is silly to suggest this. Rat poison is 98% nutritious and delicious, that is why rats eat it.

Sorry, I do not have easy trick to determine such things. Some things that can be known by reason, are known only to a few, after a long period of time, and with an admixture of many errors. If you are looking for an easy trick, try a divine revelation.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Who funds and runs this operation and for what purpose?

Why on earth did you post up the uninformative registry information on this site? Is your question implying that this site could be a 'black-op' (maybe set up by "the jew"?) intended to smear the "good name" of nazis?

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

Now these two letters (Tomitschek/Swoboda and the Bischof letter) flatly contradict each other.... snip

A particularly pathetic attempt to avoid dealing with the evidence. To any sane person the following are the salient details of these letters:

1. The letters mention corpse-cellars, morgues, ovens, cremation, gassing cellars, aeration and deaeration equipment, all in the context of a concentration camp which many historians and eye-witnesses claim was in fact an 'extermination camp'.

To a mind that is determined to believe that there was no holocaust, the following details are more important:

1. A more optimistic progess report was sent to his boss than otherwise reported
2. 3 spelling mistakes in a letter written at the height of the war in 1943.

It takes a special type of mind to read that evidence and focus on the second set of details rather than the first - a mind that has invested so heavily in prejudice that it can't see any more.

KCF

Turley wrote:

I have found it is easier to determine what is false, Chomsky for example.

Turley wrote:

I did not say everything he has ever written is false. It is silly to suggest this. Rat poison is 98% nutritious and delicious, that is why rats eat it.

Sorry, I do not have easy trick to determine such things. Some things that can be known by reason, are known only to a few, after a long period of time, and with an admixture of many errors. If you are looking for an easy trick, try a divine revelation.

You unequivocally stated that he "is false".

Do you have a source for the nutritional content of rat poison?
Do you think that making such statements about rat-poison is a real argument or could it just be repeating a slogan as a substitute for thought?

Turley

KCF wrote:

You unequivocally stated that he "is false".

No. I am sorry, I did not.

Please spare me the endless "did so," "did not," "did so,"......

KCF wrote:

Do you have a source for the nutritional content of rat poison?

"FINAL Blox" (brand name) is "specially formulated with 16 human food-grade inert ingredients" and more about this product and other rodenticides can be found by an online search. Cornell University offers material data safety sheets for most pestiicides and can be found online. If you are seriously interested I am sure you can write to the company for the content of vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, fats, etc. I don't have time to gather all of that information for you. Did you just want to score a debating point or are you really hungry?

Don't bother to answer (unless it is really important for you to have the last word). I do not enjoy talking with you and I am weary of your insults.

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

A particularly pathetic attempt to avoid dealing with the evidence. To any sane person the following are the salient details of these letters:

We'll see . . .

1. The letters mention corpse-cellars, morgues, ovens, cremation, gassing cellars, aeration and deaeration equipment, all in the context of a concentration camp which many historians and eye-witnesses claim was in fact an 'extermination camp'.

What this tells us is that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. This is a crematory facility they are building, yes? So it shouldn't suprise us to see talk about morgues, muffles (not ovens) a gasification (Vergasung) NOT gassing cellar (now you are going to ask what that is) and aeration fittings. If you knew anything about crematory technology you would not be making so much out of this. Oh I get it now, you think that the evil neo-nazi and/or antisemite holocaust deniers are claiming that there were no crematories? Or what is your difficulty here?

1. A more optimistic progess report was sent to his boss than otherwise reported

That is your hypothesis to explain a contradiction. There is nothing in the text of these letters to support that. Indeed a lying claim like that in writing would expose the author to serious disciplinary proceedings. The author, let me remind you, is SS-Hauptsturmführer Karl Bischoff. The consequences for an SS officer telling lies were extremely serious. I don't buy your hypothesis.

2. 3 spelling mistakes in a letter written at the height of the war in 1943.

I'm not particularly concerned about that. If there were clumsy syntactical and grammatical errors, or no SS runes or umlaut keys on the typewriter then I would make something of it. There are such documents by the way. Cheap forgeries.

It takes a special type of mind to read that evidence and focus on the second set of details rather than the first - a mind that has invested so heavily in prejudice that it can't see any more.

You really don't care for your credibility do you? First you are exposed for dishonesty - buit ignore it - now you swallow a contradiction, abuse those of us who will not follow you (including an anti-revisionist!) . You then have the nerve to lecture people about "scepticism" and the "scientific" attitude. Incredible!

Obni

Turley wrote:

I mean no disrespect. But we are all easily fooled, as any magician can attest. Well publicized dissent may only be the appearance of dissent and not actual dissent.

You are suggesting Chomsky and the others are double agents, or take advantage of dissent as a means of promoting themselves or their products, or their dissent is tolerated because it is not considered hazardous to the powers-that-be. Simply ludicrous.

As for Chomsky and others on JFK. I don't read Chomsky books in the hope of finding out the latest conspiracy theory. The activities of the World Bank, U.S. foreign policy, media control, ... yes. Magic bullets ...no. BTW, Have you seen the excellent documentary "The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy"?

Anyway, due mainly to my ramblings, we have gone way off this thread's topic. Perhaps this should end here, or after your reply, and separate threads on Chomsky, JFK, or other topics started.

Obni

Turley wrote:

I have found the truth in the Scriptures.

Much wisdom, solace, and inspiration can be found in the Scriptures, and even one's own sense of the truth. Would I consider it a source of truth unconditional and absolute? Or the only source (which I am aware you don't suggest)? No.

Turley wrote:

The genius and atheist Bertrand Russell wrote: ...
Compare Russell's words with the words you offered from KCF: ...

OK, I concede this point. Bertrand Russell has a slight edge over KCF (sorry KCF). However, Russell's point deals with an element of human nature on a grander scale than KCF. Russell's point is as applicable to how we interpret our relationships with others or how we understand ourselves and justify our actions and our motives, as it is about how we interpret media coverage.
KCF, I would suggest, is outlining how we deal objectively with information presented by the media, or similar, that we try to deal with dispassionately. (Of course, we can never truly switch our emotions off).

Turley wrote:

My informed judgement and common sense accepts Him as the source of truth.
Some prefer men and science as the source of truth. We will believe what we desire.

Someone (I forget whom, I have truly entered my anecdotage) once referred to science as the study of things which remain true, even if no-one believes in them.

Again we're off topic. My bad.

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

You really don't care for your credibility do you? First you are exposed for dishonesty - buit ignore it - now you swallow a contradiction, abuse those of us who will not follow you (including an anti-revisionist!) . You then have the nerve to lecture people about "scepticism" and the "scientific" attitude. Incredible!

If you care to look, I responded to your charge yesterday by pointing out that you put my name to a quote by somebody else, then stunningly accused me of dishonesty. I still await your apology.

Incidentally, on my reading, the balance of evidence on Faurisson and Carlo Mattogno is that they are probably of the fascist persuasion, certainly somewhere on the lunatic fringe of the right. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

If you care to look, I responded to your charge yesterday by pointing out that you put my name to a quote by somebody else, then stunningly accused me of dishonesty. I still await your apology.

It seems that I confused you with Wicknight, however the charge still holds because you did say this:
"You claimed that Irving, Rassinier and Zundel are evidence that 'revisionist historians' do not show an extraordinary corelation with fascism" I don't quite know what that sentence means but it is not my claim. As for an apology? When I receive an apology for your abusiveness towards me.

Incidentally, on my reading, the balance of evidence on Faurisson and Carlo Mattogno is that they are probably of the fascist persuasion, certainly somewhere on the lunatic fringe of the right. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Do you have any evidence for that completely unsupported and laughable assertion?

KCF

Eriugena wrote:

It seems that I confused you with Wicknight, however the charge still holds because you did say this:
"You claimed that Irving, Rassinier and Zundel are evidence that 'revisionist historians' do not show an extraordinary corelation with fascism" I don't quite know what that sentence means but it is not my claim.

They were the three people who you defended from my charges of fascism. I am glad to have resolved that disagreement.

Eriugena wrote:

As for an apology? When I receive an apology for your abusiveness towards me.

What abusiveness? A sane mind casting a bit of unwanted light upon your delusions may seem like abuse to you, but it's just honesty.

Eriugena wrote:

Do you have any evidence for that completely unsupported and laughable assertion?

Not much and I couldn't be bothered to research them - that's your side of the debate, you're supposed to provide positive evidence that they're not fascists.

My opinion is based upon several things. Firstly there is the circular argument, which isn't much help here. Secondly, from what I've read and seen of Faurisson, he appears to be a hate-filled individual who also comes across as being slightly deranged. His background in French traditional rightwing catholicism, which supported the nazis wholeheartedly, his association with and championing of well-known nazis like Zundel, his curious choice of vocation for a professor of literature, all combine to put him into the 'probably a nazi' category for me. Furthermore, apart from the denials of anti-semitism and fascism - which are par for the course even for the most obvious fascists and are thus worthless as evidence - I am unaware of him expressing any fundamental criticisms or differences with the politics of fascism. For somebody who spends so much time 'researching' the history of the holocaust, this would be highly unlikely if he was not of the fascist persuasion.

My reasoning for Mattogno is roughly equivalent.

If you have evidence to the contrary, you can feel free to present it. As I say, I really don't know or care that much about either of them and amn't really that interested in the details of the holocaust.

To be honest, I've grown quite bored of sharing the same bit of cyberspace as you and it's only anthropology that's keeping me going.

What I find amazing is that you and your dim friends appear to spend vast amounts of time trawling through documents about the holocaust, looking for tiny anomalies, mis-spellings and discrepancies in gas residues on stone walls. If you look at any event in enough detail through the distorting and partial glass of history, you will find that there are weird coincidences and inexplicable happenings all over the place. If somebody tried to make sense of a week of anybody's life by interviewing all their acquaintances and uprooting all the documentary evidence there would be sufficent inexplicable material to launch a thousand conspiracy theories.

The fact that there was a holocaust in which millions were killed is so well documented and supported by liberal academia that it is beyond dispute. Why on earth would you bother wasting your time trawling through the details looking for tiny morsels of conspiracy-fuel when the central fact is so solid? Despite the sinister nature of your motivations, it's more than a little sad. Anybody with half a brain can see that the two great social experiments of the 20th century - fascism and bolshevism - were complete catastrophes and the most important thing that we should take from the experience is "never again".

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

They were the three people who you defended from my charges of fascism.

No they weren't, you are being dishonest again. I pointed out to you that Paul Rassinier was a socialist as well as being a prisoner in a KZ, something that is incovenient for you. I also pointed out to you that Zundel isnota historian of any kind therefore he does not count. I also pointed out to you that Irving is not a holocaust revisionist, he has gone on record as holding to a version of the holocaust which makes him a mild functionalist

I am glad to have resolved that disagreement.

You have resolved nothing. However, you have given ample evdience of your dishonesty, abusiveness and arrogance.

What abusiveness? A sane mind casting a bit of unwanted light upon your delusions may seem like abuse to you, but it's just honesty.

Try this for a bit of honesty: you are a mendacious slanderer and someone who has demonstrated ignorance of this topic.

Not much and I couldn't be bothered to research them

Then what have you to present apart from your ignorant prejudices?

- that's your side of the debate, you're supposed to provide positive evidence that they're not fascists.

Perhaps in your little warped world people are guilty until proven innocent but no one else shares that reprehensible view.

My opinion is based upon several things.

Who cares what your opinion is, its evdience and arguments that count. Let's see some evidence or your retraction.

Turley

Obni wrote:

You are suggesting Chomsky and the others are double agents, or take advantage of dissent as a means of promoting themselves or their products, or their dissent is tolerated because it is not considered hazardous to the powers-that-be. Simply ludicrous.

I don't think I offered motives why Chomsky avoids dissent on the more serious high level corruption. Speculating on his motive, and then dismissing the speculation fails to address that fact that the "leading critic" consistently sides with the government and not the public.

I do not think you have ever read or entertained a critical thought about Chomsky. Dr. Michael Morrissey wrote: "Of course it is not necessarily wrong to agree with the government. But when "radical dissidents" agree so completely with the government, on such important questions, and the reasoning employed is so clearly wrong, the warning bells should sound.
Ding dong" For more details of Morrissey's critical thoughts on Chomsky see:
http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/chomcorr.htm

Obni wrote:

As for Chomsky and others on JFK. I don't read Chomsky books in the hope of finding out the latest conspiracy theory.

Many people do read Naom Chomsky for the latest conspiracy theory. Did you read Chomsky's book 9/11? Written in the fall of 2001, just after the mass murders and before any investigation Chomsky presents a vast conspiracy theory where 19 men are directed by a bearded man in a cave through an organization with "sleeper cells," "the Hamburg cell," and members in 60 countries to execute a plot to attack the United States of America. The conspiracy includes airline hijackers stealing indentities, because some are still officially alive (I am not making this up) and at least one, Hani Hanjour, who (I am not making this up) is unable to even fly a small Cessna propeller airplane. The conspiracy even planned for the U.S. Air Defense System to stand down and wait for the conspirator Hani Hanjour to fly for almost an hour, in a hijacked plane, to reach his target, the Pentagon!

If our purpose is to expose the truth we are not off-topic. That Naom Chomsky is a leading government critic is what is really ludicrous.

KCF

Turley, you are posting on a skeptics board, therefore if you insist on posting conspiraloon nonsense, then you should not be surprised when people mock you. Anyway, to the mocking.

Turley wrote:

I don't think I offered motives why Chomsky avoids dissent on the more serious high level corruption. Speculating on his motive, and then dismissing the speculation fails to address that fact that the "leading critic" consistently sides with the government and not the public.

That's the government that he refers to as "the world's leading terrorist state" - with consistent supporters like that the government is in safe hands.

Turley wrote:

I do not think you have ever read or entertained a critical thought about Chomsky.

He's probably one of the most criticised people on earth. I doubt there is a single person who knows of Chomsky who hasn't read and entertained critical thoughts about him.

Turley wrote:

Dr. Michael Morrissey wrote: "Of course it is not necessarily wrong to agree with the government. But when "radical dissidents" agree so completely with the government, on such important questions, and the reasoning employed is so clearly wrong, the warning bells should sound.
Ding dong" For more details of Morrissey's critical thoughts on Chomsky see:
http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/chomcorr.htm

A conspiraloon harasses Chomsky about his half-baked theories on the JFK asssassination, man-made aids and so on and Chomsky doesn't want to know. This apparently makes him 'agree completely with the government' that he refers to as 'terrorist'. Tell me, according to whatever system you employ in place of logic, can we conclude from Che Guevara or Mao Tse Tsung silence on Alien abductions, that they were really 'lackeys of imperialism' and 'counter-revolutionary running dogs' to use the appropriate jargon.

Turley wrote:

Many people do read Naom Chomsky for the latest conspiracy theory.

Since I am unaware of Chomsky ever writing anything at all about conspiracies[*1], I'd have to question their sanity. Do they also read DIY manuals for the latest conspiracy theory?

Turley wrote:

Did you read Chomsky's book 9/11? Written in the fall of 2001, just after the mass murders and before any investigation Chomsky presents a vast conspiracy theory where 19 men are directed by a bearded man in a cave through an organization with "sleeper cells," "the Hamburg cell," and members in 60 countries to execute a plot to attack the United States of America. The conspiracy includes airline hijackers stealing indentities, because some are still officially alive (I am not making this up) and at least one, Hani Hanjour, who (I am not making this up) is unable to even fly a small Cessna propeller airplane. The conspiracy even planned for the U.S. Air Defense System to stand down and wait for the conspirator Hani Hanjour to fly for almost an hour, in a hijacked plane, to reach his target, the Pentagon!

So you haven't read the book I see. He barely mentions any of the details of the hijacking itself, the book is a compliation of a few interviews where he attempts to explain the events by reference to the socio-political environment in the middle east, specifically concentrating on the abuse of US power in the region. He does, of course accept the broad outlines of what happened as presented rather than believing that mossad/cia/space aliens flew missiles disguised as planes into the twin towers[*2]. I would see this as a manifestation of sanity rather than him siding with the government.

*1 He writes about linguistics, US foreign policy, institutional analysis of
corporations, etc, all based upon information that is in the public domain and widely accepted.
*2 The 911 conspiraloons share much in common with the holocaust denier conspiraloons. The same concentration on anomalies in tiny details, the same reliance on unqualified 'scientists' who become experts on construction techniques and the thermal qualities of steel overnight. The same ludicrously implausible central argument - that vast conspiracies involving thousands of otherwise unconnected people do happen.

Turley

KCF wrote:

That's the government that he refers to as "the world's leading terrorist state" - with consistent supporters like that the government is in safe hands.

Yeah, I think you are right about that. Calling the government a name is not very threatening. If that is the best he can do they have nothing to fear from Noam. Which was my point, he avoids calling attention to serious corruption.

By the way you like to call people names too, like "conspiraloon." This shouldn't bother you but I was just thinking, everyone knew Socrates was wise but Socrates did not say he was wise. The same thing also is true for fools like yourself. It is obvious that you are a fool but you would never say you were a fool. How 'bout that?

Please don't answer that. I really do not like to converse with you because you are impolite.

KCF

Turley wrote:

By the way you like to call people names too, like "conspiraloon." This shouldn't bother you but I was just thinking, everyone knew Socrates was wise but Socrates did not say he was wise. The same thing also is true for fools like yourself. It is obvious that you are a fool but you would never say you were a fool. How 'bout that?

Please don't answer that. I really do not like to converse with you because you are impolite.

Sorry buddy, this is an internet public discussion board, you don't need an invite. Anyway, I admit that I'm a total fool, and your point is?