The Pseudo-skepticism of Michael Shermer

Eriugena

CARLO MATTOGNO
Exposing the Phony "Holocaust Denying History and Truth" "convergence of evidence" of not-so-skeptic Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman
http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=330
****
A REVISIONIST RESPONSE TO SHERMERIAN EXTERMINATIONISM, PART I
Why does Michael Shermer promote weird beliefs about the Holocaust?
By Paul Grubach
http://vho.org/GB/c/PG/111200.html
****
BIGOTRY DRESSED UP AS SCIENCE:
The Worthless Screeds Of
Pseudo-Skeptic Michael Shermer
Alexander Baron
http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=739
****

ecksor

I've read a few of his articles in Scientific American. I never considered them to be anything to do with scepticism (despite the name of his column), but some are interesting if taken just as opinion pieces.

Zombrex

Personally I am rather put off by the Holocaust Revisionist movement because, so far, I have never been directed to a piece of work or website that wasn't either

a) Linked to the Neo-Nazi political movement

b) Completely convinced that there is a Jewish conspiricy to lie about the holocaust.

It is kinda hard to take these groups seriously when they seem almost incapable of writing any points or articles down without almost frothing at the mouth with anger and distain at Jews in general, then and now.

The idea of finding the "truth" hardly seems to come into it, and certainly doesn't come across as being the main motivation for most of the pieces.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Personally I am rather put off by the Holocaust Revisionist movement because, so far, I have never been directed to a piece of work or website that wasn't either

a) Linked to the Neo-Nazi political movement

b) Completely convinced that there is a Jewish conspiricy to lie about the holocaust.

It is kinda hard to take these groups seriously when they seem almost incapable of writing any points or articles down without almost frothing at the mouth with anger and distain at Jews in general, then and now.

The idea of finding the "truth" hardly seems to come into it, and certainly doesn't come across as being the main motivation for most of the pieces.

It does not sound as if you have been to the right places. You need to go to vho.org and go to their online articles and books, especially people like Mattogno, Germar Rudolf the chemist, Faurisson etc.

The problem with this topic and the Jews, is that they are some of the leading proponents of persecution and laws to suppress free research in this area, for example, the Fabius-Gayssot law in France was a Jewish-led initiative in the late 80's. The ADL-led campaign against Zundel in Canada was on the most trumped up pretexts ever when their attempts to get him directly failed in the 1980's. This was the famous Toronto trial where the holocaust people got a bloody nose in court. On the other hand there are Jewish revisionists and critics of the Holocaust Industry, a term coined by Norman Finkelstein in his excellent book by the same name. It is a strange situation when you have one group of people who are seemingly immune from all critical comment. Even to state undisputed facts free of comment is to incur the charge of "antisemitism" or "nazism."
You need to look closely at the whole business before making a judgement. There are various powerful forces that don't want this issue aired in public becasue it treads on too many toes. For example, the post-war world order claims its moral legitimacy from having led the war to "protect freedom from evil" (sound familiar?). When you open all that up to cold scrutiny, you discover some truly astonishing things.

Talliesin

Eriugena wrote:

The problem with this topic and the Jews, is that they are

See, there's where we know you're full of it right there.

There is no unified attempt on the part of the entire Judaic people to do anything and no innately Judaic political stance on anything as much as it pleases anti-semites and right-wing Israeli nationalists alike to think so (at least the right-wing Israeli nationlists are sane enough to realise that not every Jew thinks the same way, they just think they should all think the same way).

Eriugena

Talliesin wrote:

See, there's where we know you're full of it right there.

And here is someone who doesn't read . . .

There is no unified attempt on the part of the entire Judaic people to do anything and no innately Judaic political stance on anything as

I didn't say there was - if you read the post you would see that I pointed out that there is not unanimity amongst Jews on this question. In fact I correspond with a revisionist who is of Jewish background; they have to be especially discrete because the ADL witch hunters are particularly harsh on Jews who step out of line and the JDL terrorists have a history of making death threats against Jews who are revisionists.

much as it pleases anti-semites and right-wing Israeli nationalists alike to think so (at least the right-wing Israeli nationlists are sane enough to realise that not every Jew thinks the same way, they just think they should all think the same way).

Well they certainly like to speak as if they do, as do the enemies of free speech in ADL/B'nai Brith and the terrorists of the JDL.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

Personally I am rather put off by the Holocaust Revisionist movement because, so far, I have never been directed to a piece of work or website that wasn't either

a) Linked to the Neo-Nazi political movement

b) Completely convinced that there is a Jewish conspiricy to lie about the holocaust.

It is kinda hard to take these groups seriously when they seem almost incapable of writing any points or articles down without almost frothing at the mouth with anger and distain at Jews in general, then and now.

The idea of finding the "truth" hardly seems to come into it, and certainly doesn't come across as being the main motivation for most of the pieces.

You make a good point. That may or may not be by design. Further investigation would be necessary. Linking to neo-Nazi movements may be designed to turn people away. It works.

When the U.S. press covered up the murder of a White House official during the 1990's they created false critics, like Christopher Ruddy, that were self-discrediting. The public dismissed critics like the "Clinton-hating" Ruddy and their cause for truth with them, as nothing more than "right-wing conspiracy nuts." It worked.

Ruddy was rewarded and became the editor of the popular website Newsmax.com
Proving that the crime does pay and the public can be easily fooled.

Things are not always what they appear to be. Finding the truth takes time.

Eriugena

Turley wrote:

You make a good point. That may or may not be by design. Further investigation would be necessary. Linking to neo-Nazi movements may be designed to turn people away. It works.

When the U.S. press covered up the murder of a White House official during the 1990's they created false critics, like Christopher Ruddy, that were self-discrediting. The public dismissed critics like the "Clinton-hating" Ruddy and their cause for truth with them, as nothing more than "right-wing conspiracy nuts." It worked.

Ruddy was rewarded and became the editor of the popular website Newsmax.com
Proving that the crime does pay and the public can be easily fooled.

Things are not always what they appear to be. Finding the truth takes time.

There are a lot of false flag and honey pot operations on the net.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

You make a good point. That may or may not be by design. Further investigation would be necessary. Linking to neo-Nazi movements may be designed to turn people away. It works.

Why would holocaust revisionists want to turn people away from their work? It seems they would want the widest possible audience rather than simply the neo-Nazi movement which is preaching to the choir.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Why would holocaust revisionists want to turn people away from their work? It seems they would want the widest possible audience rather than simply the neo-Nazi movement which is preaching to the choir.

His point is that not all of them are genuine, some of them are flying false flags to smear revisionism.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

His point is that not all of them are genuine, some of them are flying false flags to smear revisionism.

Ok now I am genuinely confused.

Are you saying that there a holocaust revisionsit who openly link themselves to neo-Nazi groups (such as David Irving), in an effort to discredit the movement?

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Ok now I am genuinely confused.

Are you saying that there a holocaust revisionsit who openly link themselves to neo-Nazi groups (such as David Irving), in an effort to discredit the movement?

A false flag operation is something designed to give something a bad name by the opponents of whatever it is. This is done by posing as what it is that is opposed. For example a "revisionist" site with swastikas etc would be highly suspicious. It may be real nazis who accept revisionist findings or it could be an anti-revisionist group out to discredit revisionism by associating it with nazis. A honey pot is an operation designed to resemble the real thing as closely as possible in order to draw people in, identity them and/or lead them in a false direction. Intelligence agencies use honey pots as do others. They are very useful for disrupting fringe political oppositon on the left and right by creating divisions etc.

btw, the first revisionist was a French socialist member of parliament who had himself been a prisoner in a concentration camp; Paul Rassinier. The political orientations of revisionists are as varied as they would be amongst any other group of historians.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

It does not sound as if you have been to the right places. You need to go to vho.org and go to their online articles and books, especially people like Mattogno, Germar Rudolf the chemist, Faurisson etc.

Germar Rudolf, who currently runs Stiftung Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (VHO.org), seems a very dodgy character.

Forgetting his previous membership of the right-wing Republic Party, or that fact that he publically called for Germans to revolt against the German government, his report "Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den Gaskammern von Auschwistz" (which I haven't read) seems to be based on evidence that was obtained illegally from Auschwistz for the trial of former Nazi party member Otto Ernst Remer. It doesn't say much of his credibility as a scientist, an expert witness or his un-bias nature, if this is true.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Germar Rudolf, who currently runs Stiftung Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (VHO.org), seems a very dodgy character.

Don't believe everything his enemies say.

Forgetting his previous membership of the right-wing Republic Party,

Conservative.

or that fact that he publically called for Germans to revolt against the German government,

With very good reason.

his report "Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den Gaskammern von Auschwistz" (which I haven't read)

Perhaps you should read it.

seems to be based on evidence that was obtained illegally from Auschwistz for the trial of former Nazi party member Otto Ernst Remer.

Tell me something: does the legal manner in which samples are obtained affect the chemical trace contents of samples? In other words does legality affect chemistry? No, its absurd. Under the circumstances I believe that the securing of samples was entirely justified.

It doesn't say much of his credibility as a scientist, an expert witness or his un-bias nature, if this is true.

Would you like me to supply you with the link to the debate between Rudolf and the exterminationist's best chemistry expert?

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

Ok now I am genuinely confused.

Are you saying that there a holocaust revisionsit who openly link themselves to neo-Nazi groups (such as David Irving), in an effort to discredit the movement?

How can you call yourself a skeptic and not be aware that this type of activity goes on all the time?

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. government organized anti-war groups and infiltrated legitimate groups like "Vietnam Veterans against the War." They then combined anti-war activities with drug use and promiscuity. It worked.

Many Americans did not actively oppose the war because they did not want to support a movement with pot smoking, LSD using hippies, known for promiscuous behavior. Anti-war slogans were, "Make Love, Not War" when they should have been "Make Peace, Not War."

It was a typical CIA/FBI operation and very effective at prolonging the war.
One member of the operation was David Horowitz. In those days he was a "commie leftist." Now he has changed sides and is a right-wing supporter of Bush.

Another player was James Carroll, son of the then head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA. Carroll was an anti-war "Catholic priest" during the Vietnam War. Now Carrol is a ex-communicated pope-basher and a left-wing journalist with the Boston Globe. Carroll has been recycled to lead the ineffective opposition to the War in Iraq. As the CIA agents say, "nothing changes but the uniform, the weapons and the transportation."

A cooperative, compliant press and a gullible public assures the success of a fake opposition.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Don't believe everything his enemies say.

Who are his enemies?

Eriugena wrote:

With very good reason.

You think it is a good idea to revolt against a democracy in Europe?

Eriugena wrote:

Tell me something: does the legal manner in which samples are obtained affect the chemical trace contents of samples? In other words does legality affect chemistry? No, its absurd.

The legality of the study effect the likelyhood that the study is correct rather than propaganda, and that the samples obtained are correct and gave correct results. It also calls into question the professionalism and unbiased nature of Rudolf, that he was willing to commit a crime to provide supportive testimony.

I don't konw the facts around the obtaining the samples (ie did he know it was illegal when he did it?), so any links would be helpfull.

I do know that a number of people have said that the science in the Rudolf report is flawed. Not being a chemist myself I cannot say who is right with the science for sure. I guess it depends on who you believe

Rudolf has been quoted as saying

Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust "rigorously".

Eriugena wrote:

Under the circumstances I believe that the securing of samples was entirely justified.

Why was it not possible to obtain legal samples?

Eriugena wrote:

Would you like me to supply you with the link to the debate between Rudolf and the exterminationist's best chemistry expert?

Ok

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Who are his enemies?

Most immediately, those who Norman Finkelstein refer to as the Holocaust Industry, but in fact all those who have an interest in making sure that the received story is not challenged.

You think it is a good idea to revolt against a democracy in Europe?

With all due respects I don't think you fully understand the nature of the BRD. A lot could be said about this, but it is a state, without a constitution, that was created by the Americans and imposed on the Germans. To this day there is still no peace treaty which means that WWII is still, technically, on. Under the UN Charter, the victorious powers reserve the right ot take armed or any kind of action against the defeated powers unconditionally [Article 107: Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.] There are a whole raft of repressive laws there which result in an average of c. 10,000 prosecutions for political and thought crimes per annum. To say that the BRD has a legitimation problem is a bit of an understatement.

The legality of the study effect the likelyhood that the study is correct rather than propaganda,

I don't see how? Science is science.

and that the samples obtained are correct and gave correct results.

If you read the Rudolf Report you will see that it was. Btw, the defenders of the story use the same data, they just interpret it diferently.

It also calls into question the professionalism and unbiased nature of Rudolf, that he was willing to commit a crime to provide supportive testimony.

It is not actually clear that he did commit a crime by taking such samples. Where are you getting that information from?As for all this talk about criminality, let me tell you that in German law if you offer to give expert testimony which disuptes the official story you will be prosecuted because truth is no defence. It is a Kafkaesque nightmare. Rudolf's difficlties began precisely because his results tended to undermine cofience in the existnecof homocidal gas chambers.

I don't konw the facts around the obtaining the samples (ie did he know it was illegal when he did it?), so any links would be helpful.

The Rudolf Report itself - http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html
Th exterminationist response:
http://veritas3.holocaust-history.o...ot-the-science/
Postscript response to Rudolf
http://veritas3.holocaust-history.o...ostscript.shtml
Rudolf's rebuttals
http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html
http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.4.4. (from the report)
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Evasions.html (response to the Green postscript)
http://www.yourforum.org/revforum/v...highlight=green (thread on pellet withdrawl)
The pellet withdrawl question is really the last gasp in a desperate attempt to preserve the gas chamber story.
So there you have the arguments on both sides on the chemical question - can't get any fairer than that. Btw, people like Lipstadt and the supporters of repressive laws don't want you to hear the revisionist argument, but revisionists insist that one study the received version as well which is why I have given you all the links I am aware of [the links I have posted represent the state of play up to Nov, 04, when I last suveyed this issue.]

Rudolf has been quoted as saying

Yes he has and quite rightly for it would be unscientific to claim otherwise. What the chemistry does is provide scientific evdience with which to evaluate the other evidence. His oppponnents attempt to make much out of this comment - if you look at all the links you will see the discussion over this remark.

Why was it not possible to obtain legal samples?

Let us assume that your assumption is correct. Because the interest groups consistently oppose any attempt at genuine forensic study of the H phenomenon. The Auschwitz museum to this day tell tourists that a room in Krema I is a "homocidal gas chamber"yet when pressed on this issue by David Cole, the director admitted that it was a "re-construction" as he called it, dating from the late 1940's. Cole asked him why don't they tell the tourists this and he said it would too complicated! So the authorites have admitted that they deceive tourists. Do you seriously think that they are going to cooperate with objective inquiry?

Eriugena

David Irving has been mentioned a few times in this and other related threads as a Holocaust Revisionist. This is not true. He does not describe himself as one and he has never published any studies on the holocaust. He has made some comments about the holocaust, particularly his disbelief in gas chambers. When he is writing about Hitler's war cabinet and the like then he is making judgements for he is a historian of these topics, but when he expresses views about the holocaust he is giving an opinion. He also has outspoken opinions about Jews. In this way he is a perfect strawman for people like Lipstadt who can smear holocaust revisionism by pointing to his expressed opinions about Jews and his expressions of disbelief in the gas chamber stories and claim that holocaust revisionism is some kind of anti-semitism. His unwise libel action has set back the cause of revisionism becasue somehow people will think the verdict of that case is a veridct on holocaust revisionism when in fact it was a verdict about David Irving. Indeed Irving refused the assistance of experts who would have done a much better job than he of representing the revisionists position on the evidence. Its difficult to understand his behaviour but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is something of an egotist who thought he could go it alone. Who was it said that he who represents himself in court has a fool for an attorney?
*******
Here Irving makes a number of categorcial statements disavowing any expertise in matters holocaust.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day001.htm

"I have never held myself out to be a Holocaust expert, nor
have I written books about what is now called the Holocaust."

"I have done my best to prepare the case that follows, but
I respectfully submit that I do not have any duty to become an
expert on the Holocaust, my Lord."

"I have never claimed to be a Holocaust historian. As I have
said, I have written no book about the Holocaust. I have written
no article about it. If I have spoken about it, it is usually
because somebody has asked me a question, I have been questioned
about it. On such occasions I have emphasised my lack of expertise
and I have expatiated only upon those areas with which I am familiar."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day002.htm:

"Now, you heard me say in my opening statement, Mr Rampton,
that I am not an expert on the Holocaust. What I would now say
would be a figure without any value whatsoever."

"Q. [Rampton] What you do you say about Sobibor, Treblinka,
Belzec and Chelmno?"

"A. [Irving] Nothing at all. I am not an expert."

davros

OK, enough with the holocaust threads. There are already two others on the go. This isn't the Holocaust Board.