Sunday, August 27, 2006

Meet Celtic Patriot's Best Friend

Ah, the Stormfront. Home of the alternatively-thinking, alternatively-gifted, alternatively-spelling Neanderthals. We have already seen one SF high-IQ specimen, Celtic Patriot.

Here comes the next Alternative Genius - MiketheReeper.

Hi, I'm Mike. Mike the Reeper! Aaaaargh!

Mikey tries to tackle my article about the "revisionist" lies about Alexander Pechersky.

He doesn't do very well, and his spelling is the smallest part of the problem.
Absolutly! There it is, the proof that the "Holocaust" happened!! I must thank you for finally, after how many hundreds of posts this is what you introduce ...The disrespectful rantings of a self-righteous "Holocaust" enforcer who "knows" what happened and therefore does not feel he has to share all facts relavent.
Um, Mikey, are you living in your own fantasy world, or something? (You probably do.) Where anything about the "the proof that the "Holocaust" happened" is mentioned in the article? The paragraph you're dealing does not mention it either. Hmmmm... The article does deal with the deniers' lies though.
So..he saw but he didn't?
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Are you on medication, or something? (You probably are.) Didn't you read a few paragraphs later:
Pechersky's description is not only hearsay, it is at least second-hand hearsay. ... But Graf omitted this crucial fact, destroying any credibility he might have ever had.
To make it easier for you, Mikey:

1. Pechersky didn't see it.
2. Nobody said that Pechersky saw it.
3. Pechersky himself didn't say that he saw it.
4. The person Pechersky talked with explicitly said that even he didn't see it.
5. Go to 1.

Mikey again:
Oh, I have a "eyewitness testimony that helps explain the use for the "gas chamber" having fossits and shower heads.
Camp inmates may have sometimes heard real screams and mistakenly assumed that they were the screams of people being killed. For example, consider Sarah Cender's eyewitness account of her arrival at Auschwitz, as quoted by Martin Gilbert (Auschwitz and the Allies, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981, p. 309):

"Upon arrival we were separated from the males and brought in front of a building where heaps of clothing were lying on the ground. We were ordered to undress quickly and naked we were pushed into a pitch dark chamber (what we naively and hopefully thought to be a bath facility -- although no soap or towel were given to us).
The doors closed behind us. Anxious seconds and minutes passed. Nothing seemed to happen -- for a while. Only cries and laments and hysterical screams we heard from every corner of the chamber. Some of the women started to cough incoherently, believing being choked by gas. The situation became unbearable....

Eventually, after a bombing raid, the doors were opened and Cender and her companions were ordered out of "the chamber". But how many camp inmates heard their "hysterical screams" and assumed that they were being gassed?
So how does this testimony explain anything about showers and faucets?

I understand, of course, that smart, long texts are confusing for poor Mikey:
I am assuming since this sites ideas are almost confusing
Don't assume, Mikey. That makes an ASS out of U (but not ME).

PS: Mikey's butt buddy Hektor chimes in:
But if you really believe they debunked the videos, you certainly also believe in the "gas chambers with opening floors", do you Trojan11?!
Boy, aren't you stupid, Hek! How much of "I did not see that" should we repeat to you? Whatever Biskowitz saw from a distance, in a hurry, and described as a hollow with the bodies, he said about the "collapsing floor": "I did not see that". And historians rightly don't use this part, because it doesn't mesh with other descriptions, but it doesn't discredit Biskowitz, exactly because of the circumstances in which he witnessed whatever he later described as a hollow with bodies. To repeat: it was at a distance; he was in a hurry. This doesn't add to credibility of these particular observations, and does not detract from Biszkowitz's overall credibility, because exactly these circumstances help to explain why Biskowitz got it wrong.

No comments: