Wednesday, October 11, 2006

The coward “denierbud”, …

… who blocked me from his YouTube profile, has provided some more entertainment.

These are his recent ramblings, followed by my comments:

Read more!


denierbud | October 11, 2006

Hi Sobe,

But notice after 4 hours and 15 minutes of my movie you bring in new material that isn't about the three camps in my movie.

So what? Any rule saying that your profile is only for discussing your filthy flicks? I don’t think so, especially as you have no problem with fellow frauds of yours mouthing off about the Holocaust in general.

That's what "believers" tend to do. The idea that "well there's more stuff, and if I knew about this, I'd see the story as valid."

How do you know what Sobe’s intention was in bringing up the evidence he mentioned, Bud? If you had not deleted some of Sobe’s posts lately, readers might be able to follow the context and intention of the arguments Sobe made and the evidence he showed. As it is, you probably can’t even do that yourself. What I don’t think Sobe tried to do was to make you see anything, for he's probably aware that he might as well try to make the Pope see that virgin birth is horseshit.

Why not talk about all the material mentioned in my movie?

Yeah, why not talk about that indeed? We’re talking about it right here, my good man. Why don’t you come over here and try to defend your filth, or at least accept an invitation to an open discussion forum to which the author of the respective article has access?

You mention Max Taubner and Erhard Wetzel. I have no idea who those people are.

Then do something about your ignorance, Buddy.

And as you say, they have nothing to do with the three camps in my movie.

And so? See above.

denierbud | October 11, 2006

Hi Sobe,

One thing you mention is in my movie. You write,

1)A captured document mentions a "vergasungkellar", or gassing cellar. If there were no gas chambers, how do you explain this document?

Samuel Crowell mentions this in his book "Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes" (available free at CODOH) Poison gas was used a lot during WW1. During WWII there was the possibility of it being used again by dropping gas from planes. At Dresden all the bombing sucked the oxygen out of the air, converting it to CO and many died from suffocation. The Germans were "gassed." "Vergasunskeller" was a "gas shelter" a "gas cellar" since it was partially underground.

Bomb shelter
Bomb cellar
Gas shelter
Gas cellar


First of all, sucking out the oxygen from somewhere was never referred to as gassing the people who thus suffocated. Crowell simply sucked that out off his fingers.

Second, "Vergasungskeller" has neither of the meanings you and Crowell would like it to have. The literal translation, take that from a native speaker of the German language, is "gassing cellar". And "gassing cellar", as even you and Crowell should understand, cannot possibly mean a cellar for protection against gassing or something like that. It can only mean a cellar where gassing takes place. Pretty simple, really. If I remember correctly, Crowell's ridiculous explanation was pooh-poohed by his colleague Carlo Mattogno, by the way. Mattogno had a more imaginative hoax to offer: he claimed that the cellar had occasionally been used for gassing clothes and was therefore referred to as a "gassing cellar". That also horseshit, of course, because there were special installations for that purpose at Auschwitz-Birkenau, no need to use a crematorium’s "morgue" (that’s how the same room was called in a document issued by oven manufacturer Topf & Söhne on the same day as the "Vergasungskeller" document) for disinfestations as well.

denierbud | October 11, 2006

Hi Calymath,

Holocaust Controversies is one part academic rebuttal and one part 7th grade potty mouth.

Well, then pick any of our articles and show us how much of it is "7th grade potty mouth", my friend. And when you’re finished with that - shouldn’t take long – try to address our arguments on the subject. That, of course, will take much longer, if you can manage it at all.

And until they take out the potty mouth part I'm not going to pay attention to them or consider their rebuttals.

Why not, Bud? Arguments and evidence occasionally decorated with some appropriately tough remarks about your ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty are arguments and evidence nevertheless, and they tear the claims in your videos into little pieces. Let’s face it, buddy: your "potty mouth" – complaints are but a very lame excuse to avoid confronting evidence and arguments that you have nothing to put up against.

I go to the site and see where they say that so and so has "their head up their ass." Or so and so "made him his bitch." I'm not going to deal with that.

Why not, my good man? As I said, such appropriately tough remarks about charlatans like yourself in no way affect the validity of arguments and evidence that show up your trash as what it is. Are you trying to tell us that someone who deliberately produces the kind of offensive hate-speech trash that your videos consist of is so sensitive about language that he’d rather passively stand by while his trash is torn to pieces than at least try to do something about it? Come on, Bud, don’t expect your readers to be stupid. It’s all too obvious that your language complaints are but a very lame excuse to avoid confronting evidence and arguments that you have nothing to put up against.

No academic journal in this country writes that way, and I'm on the level of academic journals.

Sorry, my friend, but this you’ll have to explain to me. On what basis do you, of all people, feel entitled to claim that you’re "on the level of academic journals"? Your video trash has about as much in common with an academic publication as a cow pat has with a first-class Italian pizza. Your level is not that of academic journals, but that of gutter propaganda pamphlets.

It's not about, as you said, "being a man" regarding the website Holocaust Controversies.

It’s exactly about that, my friend. You are hiding from rebuttals of your video filth instead of trying to counter them, and that’s being a coward rather than a man.

It's just that they are rude and pepper their rebuttals with name calling and putdowns.

As I said before, such "peppering" does not in the least affect the validity of the rebuttals. So why do you keep hiding behind it?

If it wasn't for that, (and that I could be sure they wouldn't change their rebuttals once I refuted them)

Why, what makes you so sure of that, Bud? Is it because you are unable to accept that your claims are trash that you think others would have that problem as well if you managed to refute them, assuming you really believe you could? Or are you just digging up another pretext to avoid confronting our rebuttals, presumably aware that the language pretext alone is too unconvincing? I’d say it’s the latter.

I'd address all their rebuttals.

No, my dear boy, you wouldn’t. If you had something to put up against our rebuttals, you wouldn’t be hiding behind your above pretexts but use our rudeness as an additional argument against us. The fact that you invoke said rudeness as a pretext not to confront us is an admission that you have no arguments and evidence to confront us with.

denierbud | October 11, 2006

Hi Calymath,

I wanted to add, that you can go to that website, find the strongest thing they say against my movie, and come here and post it. There's nothing keeping you from doing that.

Why does it have to be "here", Bud? Because "here" does not allow for messages as big as showing some of the evidence (e.g. quotes of testimonies and documents) might require? Because you want discussion of your video filth limited to YouTube, even though you have a website and your trash is also being paraded on or by outfits like CODOH or the National Vanguard? Because you can control discussions "here" by deleting inconvenient posts or blocking inconvenient posters? Or because of some reason worth considering that you can explain?

10 comments:

Sergey Romanov said...

No, Mattogno's hypothesis is that they were _planned_ to be used as such chambers for a short time, when other installations were failing.

104839sobe104839 said...

But of course, mattogno offers no evidence(I think). I've been reading mattogno's treblinka screed and have already found the first internal contradiction. I was about to post my rebuttals to bud's "gas shelter" crap but as usual, YT let me down and didn't post. After I called him a "hoaxter" and saying that his videos where trash, he said that he'd block me if I insulted him again. How can somebody be that sensitive? To be honest, I think he's just looking for an excuse not to defend his vids, he knows mighty well that whenever there is hard, irrefutable evidence he can just delete it. Bud, if you're reading this, make an account and DEFEND YOURSELF!!! To let you guys know, I'm working on the technichal side of the video part 1. Sobeakaaldo

Calymath said...

Denierbud,

Holocaust Controversies may be tongue in cheek, if not downright rude at times, but I'm sure you can understand why. The facts, as perceived by the majority of both the population and academia, is that millions of people - mainly Jews - were murdered in the gas chambers of the Action Reinhard and other camps. It is all very well to engage in a format such as Youtube under the persona of 'denierbud' but you must be aware that many people, myself included, find the views and (mis)interpretations that you propagate abhorrent to the name of historical enquiry and offensive to the memory of those who died.

People react to negation of the Holocaust in different ways. Some legislate against it in law, some reach for their sticks and stones. I'm sure we can both agree that either of these two approaches is, and should always be, beyond the pale. Others seek to engage argument for argument, and that is what Holocaust Controversies has attempted. Insults are unpleasant (and, for what it's worth, in this case unnecessary), but you must understand that for those who lost relatives in the gas chambers view your arguments as an offence in itself that cannot go unanswered.

As for my accusation of cowardice on your part, I can be fairly brief. On your website, you state that 'I'm only accepting rebuttals from a specific academic community which I have solicited.' This is most certainly not a mark of academic integrity, and if I may be candid it makes a mockery of your claim that you 'are on the level of academic journals.'

I do not have the time to become closely involved, but I will be following with great interest. As far as I can tell, Holocaust Controversies provides rebuttals of arguments with both depth and authority. I strongly advise you to hold your nose, and attempt to vindicate your views under full and open scrutiny.

bE said...

I think Denierbud is on of the greatest Artists on the internet. He is there to inspire people, and stop harassing him....

Long live the information REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I was hoping to find some good information here. All I read was:

* skirting and ignoring the movie's
arguments
* name calling, ie) trash movie
* absolutely no evidence



This is very poor indeed.

Natasha Has A Face said...

I remember seeing how Sobe tried to debunk Denierbud's videos. It was quite amusing. SOBE had no real counter argument and it was a joke to watch him try and make a intelligent rebuttal whatsoever.

Sergey Romanov said...

Heh, let's see denierbud try to refute our debunkings of his trash.

mugwort said...

"Heh, let's see denierbud try to refute our debunkings of his trash."

What debunking?

BTW, the German internment
camps had plenty of underground gas chambers -- for killing LICE (yuk!).

Might not that be what "Vergassungskellers" were? And unlike alleged homicidal gas chambers, visitors can still see the original bug-killing gas chambers, whereas any supposed "homicidal" gas chambers have been admitted to be postwar "reproductions."

Also, unlike for the alleged "homicidal" gas chambers, there were actual plans for building, and protocols for using and maintaining, the bug-killing gas chambers.

These bug-gassing chambers also still have huge residues of cyanide in their walls, whereas the rooms formerly alleged to have been "homicidal" gas chambers have infinitesimal amounts or none at all.

Sergey Romanov said...

> What debunking?

This one.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv

> BTW, the German internment
camps had plenty of underground gas chambers -- for killing LICE (yuk!).

No. There were plenty, but what makes you think they were underground?

> Might not that be what "Vergassungskellers" were?

Where's evidence for that?

> And unlike alleged homicidal gas chambers, visitors can still see the original bug-killing gas chambers, whereas any supposed "homicidal" gas chambers have been admitted to be postwar "reproductions."

Nope, you're lying. Birkenau gas chambers are demolished, but they're there for everyone to see, even in ruined state.

> Also, unlike for the alleged "homicidal" gas chambers, there were actual plans for building, and protocols for using and maintaining, the bug-killing gas chambers.

There were also plans for building the homicidal gas chambers. There were no written protocols for one simple reason - it was the first time.

> These bug-gassing chambers also still have huge residues of cyanide in their walls, whereas the rooms formerly alleged to have been "homicidal" gas chambers have infinitesimal amounts or none at all.

But that's comparing apples and oranges since different conditions apply to homicidal and non-homicidal gassings.

Sergey Romanov said...

Also, you contradict yourself. First you claim they were gas chambers for lice. Then you claim there are no or little cyanide traces in these chambers. But then, deniers are not known for logical consistency.