Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Latest news …

… from denierbud’s place at YouTube.

Read more!


The poster "denierbud" is the author of the Ugly Voice Productions Video, also viewable on YouTube. The poster "cortagravatas64" is me. As of 10.10.2006 at the latest, my user seems to have been blocked on denierbud’s profile.

09.01.2007
11:11 hours GMT

It seems that discussion on denierbud’s profile is over, with all comments having been removed and the profile having been locked against further comments. Or are only inconvenient posters like me blocked?

The following message was sent to denierbud’s private inbox on 09.01.2007 at 11:01 hours GMT:

Hi denierbud,

Why did you remove all comments on your profile and block the profile against further comments?


04.01.2007
15:15 hours GMT

It seems that denierbud doesn’t know what to make of housebrand and therefore prefers to ignore him and instead reply to a new fan’s praise.

denierbud | January 03, 2007
Thanks Thieue!


theeue | January 03, 2007
I just completed watching the entire film.

Great work!


housebrand | January 03, 2007
Denierbud,
If i'm following you - mattress issues are a holocaust industry bash, and don't even need to be relevant to what you may consider alledged claims of genocide

- claims of hair products have(?) failed to deliver actual products, but yet the piles of packaged hair, and documents remain
- i don't think you are having a successful "Finkelstein"
- everybody else seems to be inflating unrelated dogma, or trying to repaint NS with whatever they have, wherever, and whenever they can find it

- trying to mix unrelated(?) issues, would explain my confusion with inclusions/ ommissions/ cessations
HB



02.01.2007
12:00 hours GMT

Apparently confused by housebrand’s «neutral» approach, denierbud gives him an Isolationist speech about the importance of what he considers an item of «anti-German propaganda».

HC’s position on the «hair mattresses» issue becomes apparent from Sergey’s article Ugly Voice is completely ignorant about documentary evidence: whether or not the women’s hair cut off before gassing at Treblinka was used to stuff mattresses, as stated by Rajzman (who may have surmised this or rendered something he had been told by someone else), there is documentation showing that human hair was collected by the Nazis and used for various applications. This, in turn, means that Bud’s fuss about the supposed absurdity of cutting the women’s hair before gassing shows him to be either «a gross ignoramus, who has undertaken such am ambitious project without learning the basics» or «just a liar».

denierbud | January 01, 2007
--continued--

And you asked "does it really matter?" Yes, because my thesis is this is anti-German war propaganda.

1991: New York Times tells everyone that Saddam's forces are pulling babies off life support systems at a hospital.

Does it really matter? Yes, it was pro-war propaganda, designed to make the American public pro-war.

It's the same concept.


denierbud | January 01, 2007
Hi Housebrand,

Whatever about your "get freaky" theory.

Some people can see how ridiculous the concept of "human hair mattresses" is on face value. It's as ridiculous as such a thing nowadays.


housebrand | January 01, 2007
Denierbud,
i think where i'm at here is that the both of you are significantly clenched to your conclusions to such a point that there is not much to compare.
e.g.- hair mattresses: what does their presence or absence -really- prove?
HC might not have mentioned it, as they seem more reactionary, maybe concerned that Rajzman did lie, or maybe worried that the absence of mattresses will confuse some.
However, you are so attached to Rajzman being a liar that you might not seek hair related documents, let alone translate them.
I don't think either of you have the freedom to explore the mattress story as a quip from a twisted guard who might have suggested german women "getting freaky" on mattresses made from camp hair - questions regarding poor taste in humor by camp guards would not even exist if not for your combined competive energies.
-what slippery slope bodes for no mattresses, and Rajzman not being a liar anyway?
HB



01.01.2007
22:10 hours GMT

Denierbud is told some unpleasant truths about his kind by czar893, and he responds by ignoring those truths and making a puerile fuss about the USHMM.

Yet his most enjoyable utterance of the day is when he tells housebrand, as if that in any way made his failure to confront our criticism less ridiculous, that he doesn’t see us a «truth-seekers».

Bingo, Buddy! We are definitely not what you call «truth-seekers», and we recommend our readers to be highly skeptical whenever someone comes up pretending to be a «truth-seeker», for those who loudly proclaim to be seeking for the «truth» tend to be rotten liars. There’s a very appropriate German saying about such people, which goes: «Wo du hörest hohe Schwüre, steht die Lüge vor der Türe» («Where you hear high oaths, lies are at your doorstep»).

After this instructive statement, Bud provides some sound advice, for a change:

I'd suggest watching my videos, then read their critiques, and then make your own decision.


Why, then, does Bud not link to our critiques in order to facilitate his viewers’ own decision?

denierbud | January 01, 2007
Hi Czar,

Not to mention that Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec are almost all eyewitness-based. How is that going to lend itself to a museum exhibit?

I'm pretty sure this museum doesn't have a model of these camps.

So regarding these three camps, what exactly am I going to see at the museum you recommend? Video footage of Bomba? I've already seen it on their website, and incorporated it into a chapter in my movie.


denierbud | December 31, 2006
Hi Czar,

Your anecdote for me: visit the holocaust museum and talk to some survivors.

My movie has a number of references to the US Holocaust memorial museum website (see "Belzec Chronicles.", see "Nuremberg") and my movie is full of survivor testimony.

Your advice is feel-good meaningless.


czar893 | December 31, 2006
Evem a the trials in Tehran didnt prove anything, it was just Ahmenidinajad trust trying to get attention from the west. So i guess i do see parallels in both of your works.


czar893 | December 31, 2006
all i have to say is wow, denierbud, wow. You claimed that people believed the holocaust existed b/c we have speilberg on our side. Try talking to some survivors. I'm pretty sure that these witnesses are much more credible than your so called "historians". All they do is question. Questioning and guessing is not truth. They just want to fight the man and try to get some attention probably b/c they were not loved as a child. Listen i could make farfetched accusations that world war 1 did not happen, and it was just a bunch of actors running in front of a camera. People could believe me, most wouldn't because they trust historians. Please go the holocaust museum in D.C. This is a real pathetic attempt to bash Israel and gain attention. By the way, most jews are not anti-zionist, they are zionists.


denierbud | December 31, 2006
Hi Housebrand,

I don't really see those guys as truth seekers. I'd suggest watching my videos, then read their critiques, and then make your own decision.



31.12.2006
16:00 hours GMT

Denierbud is confronted with critical remarks to his video from several posters.

His replies to these remarks, including but not limited to his familiar excuse for not linking to our debunking of his trash, are as instructive as ever.

Housebrand seems to have read not only our articles about Bud’s video, but also the present thread, for he addresses us to clarify that his question about the German draft in World War I, see entry of 22.12.2006 13:45 hours GMT, was not meant as a trap for denierbud. Housebrand may be interested in my translation of an article about the Reich Association of Jewish Frontline Soldiers, which can be found here. Were all 85,000 German Jews who fought for Germany in World War I volunteers, as housebrand’s claim that Jews were exempted from the draft would imply? On this page one reads the following:

Im Ersten Weltkrieg wurden etwa 85.000 deutsche Juden zum Kriegsdienst eingezogen, von denen etwa 12.000 fielen.


My translation:

In the First World War about 85,000 German Jews were drafted for military service, of whom about 12,000 fell.


As to MCallanan's question regarding mattresses made of human hair, that has been addressed here. Why ask denierbud, who knows as much about the related evidence as a pig does about Sunday?

housebrand | December 30, 2006
Denierbud,
I'm sorry, it is your channel, and it's entirely up to you who has anything coming or not w/ respect to it.
Figuring out an acceptable method to interact w/ them would at least be interesting, for the few minutes before the inevitable descent into childishness.
HB


denierbud | December 30, 2006
Hi McCallan,

Tell your friend to go to holocaust museum websites and search exhibits. Call holocaust museums. Phone them up and ask about mattresses. He won't be able to find one. Tell him to see if he can prove me wrong.


MCallanan | December 30, 2006
Showing your video to a friend who questions a lot of your documentation. One of the first thing he would like to know is what documentation you have for mattresses never being found consisting of human hair?


denierbud | December 29, 2006
Hi Housebrand,

Look around this webpage. I don't link to any websites except my own. Yet, I'm supposed to link to a website that refers to the narrator as "The Ugly Voice"? Please. I don't link to IHR, or VHO, but I'm supposed to link to them (in their mind.)

Hi Onesimas,

There are graves. Documented graves: Katyn and Vinnytsya. I'm not sure to what extent I believe in the alleged 5 million Stalin/NKVD killings, but there definitely are documented graves.

They were documented by the Nazis. No one else ever took over Soviet land to be in a position to find the graves.


Onesimos1976 | December 29, 2006
The Holocaust as Definer of Good and Evil is always problematic when you see that photo of Churchill and Roosevelt hanging out with their bud Uncle Joe Stalin.

Josef stalins victim has been exaggarated during the cold war. There is no single eveidence that he killed anyone. That is a gigantic lie! It is a bigger lie than the alleged "holocaust" You, as a holocaust revisioist, believe it - and it is a bigger lie than the "holocaust" Think yourself, where are the corpses? Russia should be full of massgraves.


housebrand | December 29, 2006
Denierbud,
Thought I might stop by and congratulate you on 100 days of not linking to a blog that has put considerable effort into addressing many of your question/claims.
Whether you fundamentally agree w/ them or not, they seem to have a powerful, combined understanding of avail. info. on the subject.
I can't recall any examples where fundamentalism has been helpful toward an understanding of history - could I be fundamentally wrong?
HB
p.s. -holocaustcontrovesies crew- the draft bit was not a trap for anyone, I wasn't asking anyone to take reputation threatening stances, it's an interesting unanswered claim, and I wondered if anybody had stumbled across anything


denierbud | December 28, 2006
Hi Stephen,

I spend the first one minute of a 4 hour movie discussing the San Francisco Chronicle. Yet the bulk of your post is about that. Do you disagree that learning about the holocaust from a book written by a professor is better than learning about the holocaust from newspaper articles? Who is more qualified? The professor or the journalist?

Your first paragraph mentions the video, writings, photographs of OTHER camps. Let's talk about the camps my movie is about.

You write "the majority of the documentary seems to focus on irrelevant details." What a lie. You can't point out a single lie in my entire movie, but you start out coming here and lying. Anyone who has seen the movie knows that that sentence you wrote isn't true.

Stephen Wolfe: "the majority of the documentary seems to focus on irrelevant details." LOL.


StephenWolfe | December 27, 2006
Out of curiosity, have you ever visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C? I'd be interested to see how you can dismiss the photographs, writings, and videos- because there are such things from other camps- contained therein.

Also, "Every assertion you made is wrong" is the equivalent of "I-am-rubber-you-are-glue."

In addition, the majority of the documentary seems to focus on irrelevant details- the newspaper headlines, cited sources, and interviews which add nothing to your statements. Editor's decisions regarding humor pieces in no way affect the validity of other, well-researched articles. Which also raises the point that more than one newspaper reports on the same events, so "discrediting" the San Fran does nothing to discredit the others.

Unless, of course, it's all a conspiracy, which would explain everything.



27.12.2006
15:10 hours GMT

Denierbud answers to someone who posted questions under clip # 1, telling him, among other things, that the Germans had long since closed the AR camps before the Soviets arrived.

denierbud | December 27, 2006
Hi StephenWolfe,

Youtube comments under chapter 1 is not working. It's just been one technical problem after another. Here's the answer to your questions:

There isn't any movie footage of these 3 camps.

There's no "Nazi writings" that pertain specifically to these camps that I can think of that would support the holocaust.

You asked about testimony by American troops. American troops didn't take over the land these camps were on. The Soviets did. And the Germans had long since closed the camps before the Soviets arrived.

You asked about American accounts: For these three camps, there is no American account.



23.12.2006
23:05 hours GMT

Denierbud enjoys an amenable chat with two backslapping fellow loonies. One of them (gleeok) even provided his picture, with a swastika flag and a portrait of the Führer in the background. Just in case anyone is still wondering what kind of people it is that Buddy’s bullshit appeals to.

I also had an uncle in the German military, by the way. Doesn’t mean you have to believe in crap.

denierbud | December 23, 2006
Hi LawrenceErnie,

Thanks! It's just amazing how easy it is to put a giant lie over on everybody. One way that helps me understand that it is possible is Christianity. I hate to say it, but if grown men can believe in the devil, and Jesus dying for our sins, and the Second Coming, then other giant myths are also possible, and indeed we have one with the Holocaust. Which sort of replaced Christianity as the Definer of Good and Evil.

The Holocaust as Definer of Good and Evil is always problematic when you see that photo of Churchill and Roosevelt hanging out with their bud Uncle Joe Stalin.


LawrenceErnie | December 22, 2006
Stupendous work on those videos, brother. I wanted to drop you a line of gratitude long ago. I had an uncle in the German military and Im tired of my ethnic group being demonized. Just think there is SO much more to prove the lies than just what you presented. I've recommended your videos and the book Innocent at Dachau to people new to this topic. It would be great if someone could put up a similar presentation on Auschwitz - that's the heart of the myth.


gleeok | December 22, 2006
For the truth behind everyone's favorite Holohoa....er......Holocaust survivor, check out this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgeNSDiD0 Wk


gleeok | December 22, 2006
I don't think there is any question to how unreliable these eyewitness and
"survivor" testimonies are. They have been disproven 10X over yet gullible people with a gross lack of common sense still cling to these fairy tales. Take Elie Wiesel for example. What a fine example of a compulsive liar he is. I went as far as to make a video on him. Any input, aside from the the typical "You're an asshole. You're stupid. I wish someone would kill you." comments are appreciated. For or against, any constructive comment is encouraged and welcomed.



22.12.2006
13:45 hours GMT

Pointed by Ultrasecond to our articles about his video, denierbud responds with his familiar mantra of «bring the arguments there over here and we’ll discuss them» (in YouTube mini-posts that Bud can furthermore delete at will, yeah!). But Ultrasecond (who Bud apparently thinks to be identical with 64holocaustscholar64, judging by his accusation that Ultrasecond refused to answer whether he believes Wiernik is a reliable source) is not prepared to play Bud’s transparent game.

Housebrand makes an ironic remark about "poor scholarship" and David Cole, and asks a question about the German draft in World War I that may be a trap for denierbud (about 100,000 German Jews served their country in World War I, many were highly decorated, and about 12,000 lost their lives in battle). Watch out, Buddy!

Ah, and Bud claims that he has read our articles. Could this be true? :-)

Ultrasecond | December 21, 2006
Oh how adorable. You're like Elmer Fudd, ever trying to lure buggs bunny out of the rabbit hole with a carrot. No thanks, doc. Dropping an anvil on your head from a safe distance is a much more rewarding proposition than pretending you'll listen to any rational arguments or credible evidence presented to you.


denierbud | December 21, 2006
Hi Ultrasecond,

In the episode 1 comments, you've refused to answer whether you believe Yankel Wiernik is a reliable source.


Ultrasecond | December 21, 2006
You're cute. You keep acting as though I'm actually dumb enough to engage someone as intellectually dishonest as you in debate. When the reality is, you have yet to propose a meaningful position which can be debated in the first place - your arguments in the video are unintelligable and sloppy at best, racist and vindicative at worst.

I'm not saying "let's debate." I'm saying "here, read this - it shows you're wrong, and why we have no reason to discuss anything" and also "you're a moron."

No sir, you are beyond both reason and insult. Mockery of your willful myopia and countless other shortcomings is the best that you deserve, and that you are barely even deserving of.

Good day sir!


denierbud | December 21, 2006
Hi Ultrasecond,

I've read them.

So let's see if you can now actually discuss the video for the first time by going there and reading the material. Then come back here armed with all your information, and post some refutations to the video.


housebrand | December 21, 2006
bud, i found the clip, my intent was to define some "poor scholarship" to an individual at "60 minutes" - as it turns out they know david cole well, and i've just let it go
- kinda curious if you know anything about the german draft for WW1, i was once told that "jews" were excluded from it, and that it impacted the mid-war years
thanks, HB


Ultrasecond | December 21, 2006
So you can further nitpick your way out of confronting the big picture? Please.

Are you capable of looking out the window and noting that during a clear daytime, the sky appears to shine blue?

Good.

Then go to the site, read the links for yourself, and attempt to comprehend how terribly wrong you really are.


denierbud | December 21, 2006
Hi Ultrasecond,

Go to those links yourself, read the material, and come back here and post something under the appropriate video chapter and see how well it holds up.



21.12.2006
09:41 hours GMT

Yesterday I posted a message on Ultrasecond’s profile calling attention to our debunking of Bud’s video clips.

Today we can see the effect of this message.

Ultrasecond | December 21, 2006
Also, apparently I am an expert at identifying spades: http://holocaustcont roversies.blogspot.c om/2006/10/latest- news_03.html


Ultrasecond | December 21, 2006
Also: Mouth-breathing ignoramus. Can't forget to leave that in.


Ultrasecond | December 20, 2006
You're correct, I haven't been complete in illustrating my point.

I shall do so thusly; in addition to being a scumbag of the ages, you are also a creme de la creme intellectually dishonest chickenshit liar.

Proof of said point may be viewed here: http://holocaustcont roversies.blogspot.c om/2007/09/sticky- chicken- challenge.html

And here: http://holocaustcont roversies.blogspot.c om/2006/08/master- debater.html

And also here: http://holocaustcont roversies.blogspot.c om/2006/04/quick- links.html#debuv

I bid you good day sir!




20.12.2006
18:55 hours GMT

Denierbud responds to Ultrasecond with the usual claim that the latter can’t debunk his video clips (as Bud well knows, other people are doing just that right here), and another poster announces further conversation.

voltairelover | December 19, 2006
Hey denierbud,
been trying to email you and continue our exchange since the 13th but to no avail (both responding to "piss and vinegar" and your first one for which i had been trying to formulate my thoughts). so while the youtube folk do nothing to fix my messaging problem, i realised i had to post a comment to get to you. even under a new screenname i can't send mail. so please try me at my usual screenname or, if it is possible to do so in a way that won't compromise your wish to remain anonymous, email my usual screenname but with @hotmail.com at the end.

you should know who i am from what i've mentioned thus far. i too have a desire to remain anonymous which is why i originally emailed you instead of posted comments. please respect that and the reason why is actually in my long response that i'd been promising you but have been unable to get to you.


denierbud | December 19, 2006
Hi Ultrasecond, If I'm wrong, then why can't you point out where? If I overlooked evidence, why can't you offer that evidence?




19.12.2006
10:45 hours GMT

Amenable chat between denierbud and a new poster (Housebrand), in which Bud discreetly praises his own «scholarship» («But that other movie you're talking about is poor scholarship. Like any field this field has good and bad scholarship.») and shows a flicker of common sense («The camps weren't fun and games as that movie conveys.»)

Less sympathetic than Housebrand of «some of the passion that must have been involved» in the making of Bud’s video, another new poster (Ultrasecond) calls a spade a spade.

Ultrasecond | December 19, 2006
Truly sir, you are a scumbag for the ages.


denierbud | December 18, 2006
Hi Housebrand,

Thanks.

But that other movie you're talking about is poor scholarship. Like any field this field has good and bad scholarship. I don't recommend that movie. The camps weren't fun and games as that movie conveys.

However I do recommend "The David Cole Video." That is good scholarship, good research. Show your friend that instead.


housebrand | December 18, 2006
Denierbud,
to say i've liked some of your videos is misleading, however, i've come to appreciate some of the passion that must have been involved in their production
- suffice to say although i may disagree w/ some of the trees as well, i don't dispute a forest
- i recently stumbled on a vid in youtube of plays, musicals, symphony, a soccer match, ect. in concentration camps, and i can't find where it is... if someone could help me find it, i'd like to send it to a friend
- i'm also curious if you produced the camp models you use, or are they images from elsewhere
thanks, HB



17.12.2006
22:17 hours GMT

I see the denierbud backslapper 87kaiser87 didn’t like my message on his profile and deleted it.

Which is not surprising if you look at the fellow’s website.

It’s also not surprising to see what kind of audience denierbud’s trash appeals to.


16.12.2006
14:05 hours GMT

Another denierbud backslapper:

87kaiser87 | December 15, 2006
Hey bud just wanted to say great work, schools should show this kind of stuff to students. You poked a lot of holes into the holohoax in just 4 hours. Thanks for posting this on youtube, hopefully millions will see it over time
.

I posted this on the backslapper’s profile:

Hi,

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the most viewed of denierbud’s clips, # 1, has been viewed 4,622 times in 6 months, including views by commentators who don’t like that shit. At this rate, it will take 108 years until there are a million viewers.

It also takes a lot of gullible wishful thinking to assume that denierbud’s mendacious nonsense has blown any holes in what you call the «holohoax», i.e. the historical record of the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews in World War II. Actually denierbud’s crap is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, and they are being gradually exposed on the Holocaust Controversies website, the link to which you find on my profile. We have already shredded two thirds of denierbud’s clips, and there’s more to come next week.
-to be continued-

-continuation-
You say you want that trash shown in schools. Well, I guess you’ll have to wait for a fascist regime using school to systematically tell lies to kids and make them stupid and obedient. Not that I think much of the US school system, but it hasn’t yet reached such a low level.

The reason I’m not writing this on denierbud’s profile is that I have been blocked there, by the way.




P.S. to previous entry

In case someone is wondering where I learned about the Vietcong «shit bombs» mentioned in my previous entry, the source is the following excerpt from an interview with a Vietnam veteran, a former member of the Green Berets commando unit, transcribed in Mark Baker: Nam. The Vietnam War in the Words of the Soldiers Who Fought There, 1981 Berkley Books New York, page 183:

At one point, the NVA were throwing shit bombs at us. They take advantage of the ammonia in the shit when it breaks down as an explosive. One guy pops up with a bright idea, “Why don’t we collect all the Montagnard shit in the camp and make bombs to use against the NVA?”
“What the fuck are you talking about?” I said. “Shit bombs! This is what the Viet Cong use when they can’t get anything else.” I said, “Do you want us to become like them?”
One asshole says, “Well, sir, we are guerrilla fighters.”
“You want to go out and do it, go ahead.”



15.12.2006
10:36 hours GMT

64holocaustscholar64 has responded to both denierbud and MCallanan, and the former responded in an instructively idiotic manner.

«When asked about Yankel Wiernik, 64HolocaustScholar states that when a body decomposes "flammable substances, such as methane, butyric acid, and hydrogen are formed." In other words the bodies become flammable. And that's how what Wiernik is saying about burning bodies is true.»

No, Wiernik didn’t say that the bodies were incinerated on their own without an external flammable, as explained here. In the context of Wiernik’s A Year in Treblinka, the flammable substances that form during decomposition are of relevance only in regard to his account of an experiment in which the SS threw a burning object into a grave full of rotting bodies, thereby causing a glimmering flame (not a flame strong enough to consume the bodies, because the draft was insufficient). For the reasons explained in the aforementioned article and here, this account is entirely plausible. For the same reasons, plus the dehydration of the bodies during decomposition, evidence that decomposed bodies required less fuel to burn than «fresh» bodies is also plausible.

«Question: what's that piece of pork you forgot about in the back of your fridge?

Answer: A torch.»

A torch is hyperbole, but a decomposed piece of meat will probably burn better than a fresh piece of meat if exposed to a flame. And if you keep a rotting piece of meat in a closed metal box or so until it stinks like hell, it is likely that flammable methane will build up inside that box and ignite when you hold a flame to it. During the Vietnam War, the Vietcong made «shit bombs» based on this principle, except they used manure instead of decomposing meat. Of course a single chunk of meat and thousands of rotting bodies in a mass grave are entirely different propositions as concerns the expectable amount of flammable substances produced by the decomposition process.

«And were you to ask 64HolocaustScholar about how Adolf Eichmann saw the fountain of blood from buried bodies he'd probably have an answer for that as well. Blood fountains are possible as are the flammability of the bodies.»

Indeed they are, as explained in this article. The underlying physical and chemical phenomena are not too hard to understand.

«And bodies are what percent water? 80 percent?»

Not quite, but Bud has unwittingly mentioned what may be the chief reason why decomposed bodies burned better than «fresh» bodies at Treblinka: at the more advanced stages of the decomposition process, the water that a human body mostly consists of would no longer be there.

Blood contains a sizable part of the water that a human body is mostly made up of, by the way:

Water is in a number of different compartments of the body. Of the 42 liters mentioned above, about 28 L are inside cells (intracellular). The remaining 14 L are extracellular: about 3 L are in blood plasma, and 11 L are in the spaces between cells, including lymph (interstitial fluid)..

And blood is mostly made up of water:

A significant fraction of the human body is water. This body water is distributed in different compartments in the body. Lean muscle tissue contains about 75% water. Blood contains 83% water, body fat contains 25% water and bone has 22% water.

Now to the posts:

denierbud | December 15, 2006
When asked about Yankel Wiernik, 64HolocaustScholar states that when a body decomposes "flammable substances, such as methane, butyric acid, and hydrogen are formed." In other words the bodies become flammable. And that's how what Wiernik is saying about burning bodies is true.

Question: what's that piece of pork you forgot about in the back of your fridge?

Answer: A torch.

And were you to ask 64HolocaustScholar about how Adolf Eichmann saw the fountain of blood from buried bodies he'd probably have an answer for that as well. Blood fountains are possible as are the flammability of the bodies.

And bodies are what percent water? 80 percent?


64holocaustscholar64 | December 14, 2006
For McCallan


"64HolocaustScholar6 4 , you don't seem to be putting up much of a case and or argument."

1) I have now debunked two of the world's leading "Revisionist" scholar's "evidence" for the mass resettlement of Jews through the AR camps. I'd say that I'm doing a good job.

2) Oh yeah, I really care what *those* people think about how consistent my arguments are. LOL

"May I ask what your qualifications are to be considered a scholar of the Holocaust as you have touted youself?"

1) This is irrelevant as can be, regarding the consistency of my arguments.

2) I study the Holocaust and Holocaust Denial. Simple as that. I never said that I was a historian of any kind.


64holocaustscholar64 | December 14, 2006
Hi denierbud,

'We know about the radio Moscow broadcast..."

What about the radio broadcast? As has been demonstrated, it is poor evidence that the AR camps served as a transit camp. Now, do you concede that the previously-mentioned radio message is not evidence that the AR camps were transit camps?

'These Parisian Jews went right past Belzec and were settled in the Ukraine. Hmmm."

So what? Maybe this was before the killing started. Belzec was being built as early as Nov. 1941, before mass killings began. Denierbud's above quote does nothing to prove that the AR camps' sole purpose was to serve as a transit camp.

Regarding Wiernik, there's A LOT to say. But for now, let me just say that, during the decomposition procedure of a corpse, flammable substances, such as methane, butyric acid, and hydrogen are formed. You don't take this into account regarding Wiernik nor in your 'Lamb" episode.



14.12.2006
14:47 hours GMT

Ongoing discussion between 64holocaustscholar64 and denierbud, in which the former asks «which of these radio messages, eyewitness accounts, etc provide evidence that Jews were resettled from the AR camps to the east» and the latter’s answer is as puerile as can be: «They all do.» Actually none does, which is why «Revisionists» are reduced to arguing like Bud does in regard to the Parisian Jews supposedly found in Ukraine by the Red Army according to an unconfirmed radio Moscow broadcast:

These Parisian Jews went right past Belzec and were settled in the Ukraine. Hmmm.


Even if this radio broadcast were accurate, which detailed reconstructions of the destinations of Jews deported from France show not to have been the case, there would be a number of reasons why Jews might have been deported from France to Ukraine and not to the AR camps or to Auschwitz-Birkenau, the latter camp being where most Jewish deportees from France actually ended up. The deportation might have occurred before the killing centers became operational as such, as in the case of the deportations of Jews from the Old Reich and the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia to Minsk and Riga in the autumn of 1941, mentioned in this chapter of Peter Longerich’s expert opinion The Systematic Character of the National Socialist Policy for the Extermination of the Jews, submitted at the Irving-Lipstadt lawsuit in 2000. Or they might have been employed as forced laborers, like the Jews from other countries transported to Belorussia that are mentioned in the excerpt from Christian Gerlach’s book Kalkulierte Morde transcribed and translated here. But then, who expects an ignorant denier like Bud, with a monolithic kindergarten notion of the Nazis’ extermination policy against the Jews, to know anything about the development and nuances of that policy and its execution?

Independently of the above, if Jews were deported to Ukraine «right past Belzec» from France this would not be anything like evidence that Jews deported to Belzec were moved on anywhere from there, of course. And such pseudo-indications are all that «Revisionists» have to offer by way of evidence in support of their «resettlement» claim. Poor show.

64holocaustscholar64 rightly points out that discussing the credibility of an eyewitness, in this case Mr. Wiernik, requires a lot more space than is allowed by YouTube mini-posts. However, the essence of the matter can be formulated in one sentence: Wiernik’s account is essentially credible because most of it is not only plausible, but also corroborated by evidence, namely other eyewitnesses and documents, that is completely independent of Wiernik.

Then we have what seems to be a «Revisionist» of the «I do not consider myself a revisionist» variant, congratulating Bud for his «unbiased and documented account» (ROFL!) and asking 64holocaustscholar64 a rather pointless question about his knowledge of the matter, which he should be asking denierbud instead. I sent this gentleman, who posts as MCallanan, the following message on his own page:

Hi,

I couldn't help laughing when I saw you calling denierbud's mendacious nonsense an «unbiased and documented account».

Unfortunately I'm blocked from denierbud's page and therefore cannot tell you on that page what I think of this comment, which suggests that you are either a "Revisionist" yourself or a very uninformed, trusting and gullible person.

In case you want to see just how «unbiased and documented» denierbud's video is, visit the Holocaust Controversies blog under
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/ , especially the growing section under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv .


Last but not least, I like denierbud’s «I do what I can within the youtube confines», to which I would add:

And you take care to never leave those restrictive confines where you can control postings, don’t you, Buddy? Except, of course, to where you can expect a friendly «Revisionist» moderator to do this controlling for you.

Now to the messages on denierbud’s YouTube page:

MCallanan | December 13, 2006
Denierbud,

First, allow me to thank you for putting together a thought provoking documentary. Unlike leading revisionists such as Ernst Zundel, Mark Weber, and David Duke you have put forward an unbiased and documented account. As I watched your documentary for a second time the quote, "Only by examining that which is behind us can we ever hope to gain insight into that which lies ahead." continuously ran through my head.

I had studied the Holocaust and the second World War for some time. I do not consider myself a revisionist, I do believe what Nazi Germany did were atrocities and they were wrong in doing so. However, everything in history can be debated, and with as many factual errors as there are with the Nazi Death Camps why not this topic?

64HolocaustScholar64 , you don't seem to be putting up much of a case and or argument. May I ask what your qualifications are to be considered a scholar of the Holocaust as you have touted youself?


denierbud | December 13, 2006
64Holocaustscholar64

I do what I can within the youtube confines. Surely you could offer a little bit on why you think Wiernik is a reliable source.


denierbud | December 13, 2006
Hi 64Holocaustshcolar64 ,

You asked if I could tell you which radio announcements and eyewitnesses provide evidence. They all do. Should I give a list of the 20 some-odd witnesses Mattogno and Graf mention?

We know about the radio Moscow broadcast, because it's mentioned in the Jewish underground paper Notre Voix. Issue Number 71 of April 1944. It is reproduced in "La presse antiraciste sous l'occupation hitlérienne. Foreword by A. Raisky, Paris 1950, p. 179." I'll translate that as "The press during the Nazi occupation."

These Parisian Jews went right past Belzec and were settled in the Ukraine. Hmmm.


64holocaustscholar64 | December 13, 2006
Regarding Wiernik,

I need A LOT more space than an itty-bitty youtube profile comment to debunk your propagandaistic episode.


64holocaustscholar64 | December 13, 2006
Hi denierbud,

Can you please kindly tell me which of these radio messages, eyewitness accounts, etc provide evidence that Jews were resettled from the AR camps to the east?

An unconfirmed radio message that talks about finding Jews (that could be from anywere) in the east is the poorest type of "evidence" I have seen in support of this idiotic, mass resettlement theory.

"This section begins by mentioning there's not a lot of hard evidence"

Yep, which already demolishes the resettlment theory, because the mass resettlement of 1.5 million (1.7 according to Arad) people would leave behing a huge paper trail, documents,....etc.

"Two of those possibilities was that they were not."

Yep, and since those "possibilities" don't have any evidence to back them up, they fall under their own weight.



13.12.2006
10:28 hours GMT
Discussion on 13.12.2006

Wow, denierbud offers «evidence» that the Jews transported to the AR camps were transported eastward from there! And guess what it is: the piss-poor stuff presented in Mattogno & Graf’s screed, which is as much evidence to such transportation as I’m the Pope. The next question would be:
How are any of the «20 or so survivor accounts … Nazi speeches … Jewish publications» offered by Mattogno and Graf supposed to proof that ~ 1.5 million Jews were transported eastward from the AR camps? An explanation of such conclusion on hand of a few of those exhibits, preferably the ones that Bud considers the most telling, would be in order.

I also like denierbud’s answer to 64holocaustscholar64’s question about proof that the AR staff were not former "euthanasia" workers: he lamely bleats that "revisionists don't have all the answers" and points out that he has offered three possibilities and "Two of those possibilities was that they were not." Boy, and I always thought that what mattered was not the number of hypothetical possibilities offered but which of them are supported by evidence ...

Apparently aware that he’s in a tight spot, denierbud then tries to change the subject by asking 64holocaustscholar64 whether he considers Yankel Wiernik a credible witness and why. That question has been answered in this article, where the following pertinent question was asked:

How come that Bud can’t lie very well?

However, not all is bad news for our friend Bud. There’s the occasional back-slapping fellow true believer, in this case Mr. or Mrs. "zoule", to console him.

zoule | December 13, 2006
your a legend.....I salute HOLOCAUST DENIAL....


denierbud | December 13, 2006
Hi 64Holocaustscholar64,

Now let me ask you a question: Do you think Yankel Wiernik is a credible eyewitness? If so, why?


denierbud | December 13, 2006
For 64Holocaustscholar64

Question #2: If you don't think that the Reinhardt workers were former euthanasia workers, then what proof do you have?

Answer: I didn't say that. I answered this question on Dec. 6, 2006. I said revisionists don't have all the answers. I'm not sure. Then I offered 3 possibilities. One of those possibilities is that they were euthanasia workers. Two of those possibilities was that they were not.


denierbud | December 13, 2006
For 64Holocaustscholar64

Question #1: What evidence do you have that people left these camps and went East.

On page 253 of the PDF version of Treblinka by Mattogno and Graf, we see "6. Final Destination of Jews Deported to the East." The pdf of the book is free at VHO.org.

This section begins by mentioning there's not a lot of hard evidence, but there are a lot of pieces of evidence which makes it possible to draw conclusions. The Radio Moscow broadcast is one of maybe pieces of evidence the book gives. Mattogno and Graf offer 20 or so survivor accounts, they offer Nazi speeches excerpts, they offer Jewish publications. They mention how the account of the Jewish ghetto of Rowa-Ruska doesn't make sense (pg. 261) being so close to Belzec. This section of the book is the evidence I offer.


denierbud | December 13, 2006
Hi 64Holocaustscholar64,

I don't want to run away, or change the subject. Nor am I scared of answering your questions. I never saw you demolish Mattogno's example.

You have two questions:
1) what evidence do you have that people left these camps and went East.

2) If you don't think that the Reinhardt workers were former euthanasia workers, then what proof do you have?

--CONTINUED--


13.12.2006
10:18 hours GMT
Discussion on 12.12.2006

Denierbud responds to CalatilySisters’ debunking of his «the Jews knew it was a fake because Jewish terrorists attacked the British and killed Count Bernadotte» imbecility with his beaten old «oh, but you can’t refute my videos» - mantra. Well, that is being done, as Bud well knows. Not in You Tube mini-posts, but here.

64holocaustscholar64 continues his interrogation.

64holocaustscholar64 | December 12, 2006
Denierbud, why are you running away and changing the subject? Are you scared of answering my question? Seems like it, folks.

Poor denierbud. I demolished one of Mattogno's piss poor pieces of evidence in front of his eyes, he has no evidence for his assertions(JFYI, this is a typical "revisionist' trait), and now poor cornered denierbud is changing the subject.

Don't change the subject.

I told you, if you want to make-believe that the folks that "worked" at the AR camps WEREN'T former euthanasia workers, then PROVE it.

WHY ARE EUTHANASIA WORKERS NEEDED FOR TRANSIT CAMPS?


denierbud | December 12, 2006
Hi CalatilySisters,

Well if I'm so wrong, why can't you take on the specifics of the movie? So many people like you mention "the facts of history." Translation: the lies you've been told and believe with all your heart. Particularly believable to you when they justify war.

Why can't you and 64Holocaustscholar64 ever start out a post like this:

"Yankel Wiernik was an honest and reliable eyewitness, here's why...."

The water well, the outdoor burning, Bomba's gas chamber disguised as a hair salon, these are things you can't take on.

Instead it's a lofty discussion about "the Facts and Proofs of History."

CalatillySisters ending comment: "history says I'm right." Nice.


CalatilySisters | December 12, 2006
An irish man like me recognises the good Britain did in fighting Germany, and helping liberate western europe. But for me it is still important to condemn the actions of a country which for a longer period oppressed so harshly colonies they "owned" such as Ireland and the then Palestine, so no, Britain is not my saviour.Also i support highlighting the crimes against native americans, only not for americans living today to take the blame for history, just like british people today over their empire. Denierbud, you're a deluded fool, history says i'm right, don't contact me again.


CalatilySisters | December 12, 2006
Firstly, i never said every occupied area had lost all their jewish communites. An idiot would say there wasn't a single survivor. Regarding the arab-israeli war of independance, i meant surely more than 110,000 jewish troops could be used if so many of the six million jews you believe didn't die and had emigrated. Thirdly the british mandate of palestine was no saviour.For people with facts, there's a difference between colonial opression and defending against Nazi Germany.Irgun supported jewish enlistment in the British army 1940-1943 to help the allied cause.Lehi was an underground extremist faction, Israel and Sweden recognises Bernadote's death as a crime by israeli terrorist's, and not the state entire.



12.12.2006
10:28 hours GMT

Cornered by 64holocaustscholar64’s questions and challenges, denierbud turns to hysterical rambling about oh-so-ridiculous accounts related to the extermination camps. My favorite is this statement, where Bud admits to the irrelevance of his claim in the end:

Saint Bernards are a docile breed of dog bred to save hikers in the snow. LOL. (It was a St. Bernard mix actually)


Exactly, Kurt Franz’s dog Barry was a half-breed, which means that what applies to pure-bred Saint Bernhard dogs need not have applied to Barry. As explained by renowned animal psychiatrist Konrad Lorenz at the 1st Düsseldorf Treblinka trial, dogs, and especially half-breeds, tend to be the mirror image of their master’s character, which explains why Barry was ferocious to the point of killing or mutilating inmates when under Franz’s influence and orders but docile and playful when Franz was not around or under his subsequent master, called by Franz’s defense as a witness to Barry’s harmlessness. But one shouldn’t expect a true believer in and ignorant consumer of "Revisionist" propaganda like denierbud to know that, right?

denierbud | December 11, 2006
--CONTINUED

Everything they said about the Germans at the camps is ridiculous. Kurt Franz and his genital-biting Saint Bernard. The urban storytellers couldn't even get that right. Saint Bernards are a docile breed of dog bred to save hikers in the snow. LOL. (It was a St. Bernard mix actually)

Then there's Hirtreiter smashing babies. What a lie. As ridiculous as the Auschwitz lies about Irma Grese "she had an affair with Mengele, eventhough she's a lesbian."

Yet, when it comes to the camp workers employment history, I'm suddenly supposed to believe the official story. LOL. And if I'm sceptical, 64Holocaustscholar64 wants p-r-o-o-f!


denierbud | December 11, 2006
Hi 64Holocaustscholar64 ,

You demolished my explanations, if you do say so yourself.

You are twisting my words and acting like hard evidence and proof are on your side.

And that phrase, "does Denierbud concede.." That's ridiculous.

You've provided a nice example of sophistry.


64holocaustscholar64 | December 11, 2006
Sorry denierbud, but I already demolished your alternate "explanations":

Your say-so isn't good enough. If you think that the majority of the SS men in the AR camps WEREN"T former euthanasia workers, P-R-O-V-E it.

Regarding Mattogno, does Denierbud concede that the previously mentioned radio message isn't at all evidence for the resettlment of Jews from Treblinka etc to the east, as previously demonstrated?



11.12.2006
10:16 hours GMT

Faced with another poster (Calatillysisters) who calls a spade a spade, denierbud provides some beautiful examples of the tiny conspiraloon cloud-cuckoo-land he lives in.

I don’t know which of them I like better: the claim that the bloody Jews must have known the Holocaust to be a «fake» because Jewish terrorists waged war on «their supposed European savior: England» in Palestine instead of gratefully kissing the British mandate power’s feet, or the claim that Jewish terrorists assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte because «they knew it was a fake»? Both equally reveal the kindergarten-level reasoning of a fanatical nut desperately looking for whatever he thinks might support his articles of faith.

The "Reader's Digest Episode" that denierbud refers to in his first reply to Calatillysisters was dissected in this article.

I also like denierbud’s lame response to 64holocaustscholar64’s pointing out that a radio broadcast is piss-poor «evidence» for the alleged resettlement of ~1.5 million people, which «would leave behind a huge paper trail, and the amount of evidence for that would be so huge that there would be no need to look around for insignificant radio messages»:

That radio broadast isn't the best piece of evidence or only evidence. In that passage in Mattogno and Graf's book there are 10-20 examples. I just chose one.


The next question would be: which of these «examples», then, are supposed to be evidence that ~1.5 million people were moved on eastward from the AR camps and resettled somewhere in the occupied Soviet territories?

denierbud | December 10, 2006
--CONTINUED--

At that time a lot of Jews knew the holocaust was a fake. Like Hillel Kook's group "The Irgun." That's why they could bomb and wage a terror war on their supposed European savior: England. If the holocaust had really happened they would have been thankful to England for saving them. Similarly they knew it was a fake so there wasn't a reservation about assassinating Count Folke Bernadotte. They assassinated him even though he had supposedly saved a lot of Jews from the holocaust.

An Irish person (you) believing that England is the savior of the world, via WWII, is like an American Indian believing the USA is the savior of the world, via WWII.


denierbud | December 10, 2006
Hi Calatillysisters,

Why does everyone seem to know for a fact that there were no Jews left in Europe after the war? In my "Reader's Digest Episode" I show a table from Raul Hilberg's book. It shows that a lot of Jews were left after the war, and Hilberg isn't even honest.

And let's look at your statement

"and if it was faked the jews wouldn't of needed to fight so hard against the palestinians."

Huh? They fought hard against the Palestinians because the Palestinians didn't want their land taken away.
--CONTINUED--


CalatilySisters | December 10, 2006
Sorry but you really are a disgusting example of a human being, nearly entire jewish communities from as far as Thesaloniki in Greece and Romania to the netherlands disappeared during the Holocaust.I commend you as an american against the lebanon invasion by israel but you must separate anti-israeli sentiment from anti-semitism. The proof has smaller depth in comparison to opposing examples, and if it was faked the jews wouldn't of needed to fight so hard against the palestinians in 1948.Seriously please, please stop recreating history


denierbud | December 10, 2006
64Holocaustscholar writes, regarding what I said about the euthanasia workers working at the Reinhardt camps:

"Why can't you answer my inquiry?"

My response: I did. I answered it at length, with 3 possibilities, here in the profile comments on Dec. 6, 2006.


denierbud | December 10, 2006
Hi Holocaustscholar64,

Regarding our dialogue about Jews being shipped East:

That radio broadast isn't the best piece of evidence or only evidence. In that passage in Mattogno and Graf's book there are 10-20 examples. I just chose one.


64holocaustscholar64 | December 10, 2006
Hi denierbud,

Why can't you answer my inquiry? Is it too hard to tackle? Ya'know if you don't answer my question, everybody'll know that you're dodging.

I'l repeat it for the sake of argument:

"WHY ARE EUTHANASIA WORKERS NEEDED FOR TRANSIT CAMPS?"

And don't even think about saying that the ppl at the AR camps weren't euthanasia workers without proof.


64holocaustscholar64 | December 10, 2006
Hi Denierbud,

How do you know that the radio message was referring to Jews from Treblinka? Quote please.

Even more astounding is that this is the best "evidence" we'll have of this supposed resettlement, folks. And this is coming from the leading "revisionist" scholar!

The fact that denierbud and Mattogno take that radio message as "evidence" for the resettlement of Jews to the east goes to show how desperately stuck they are to their "revisionist" faith.

Not to mention that the resettlement of ~1.5 million people would leave behind a huge paper trail, and the amount of evidence for that would be so huge that there would be no need to look around for insignificant radio messages.

Poor deniers.


10.12.2006
12:15 hours GMT

Before I forget it, this claim of denierbud’s is also worth pointing out:

The West German government would have never released revisionist information if they had it. To get an idea of this, consider that the West German government likely killed Auschwitz Commandante Richard Baer in the '60s.


Apart from West Germany being a constitutional state with defendant-friendly rules of criminal procedure, whose government does not exactly have a record of murdering suspects under investigation, and apart from the absence of even the slightest indication to any manipulations by West German criminal justice authorities in the investigation of NS murder crimes, denierbud’s claim is hilarious in that it is apparently based on the notion that Richard Baer made statements favorable to “Revisionism”. However, what Baer actually stated at his pre-trial interrogations on 22 December 1960, as quoted on page 199 of Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, was the following:

Ich bin nur Lagerkommandant von Auschwitz I gewesen. Mit den Teillagern, in denen Vergasungen stattfanden, hatte ich nichts zu tun. Ich habe auch keinen Einfluss auf die Vergasungen selbst gehabt. Die Vergasungen fanden im Lager II-Birkenau statt. Dieses Lager understand nicht mir.


My translation:

I was only camp commandant of Auschwitz I. With the partial camps in which gassings occurred I had nothing to do. I also had no influence on the gassings themselves. The gassings took place in Camp II – Birkenau. This camp was not under my command.


A piece of well-meaning advice for denierbud: do not rely blindly and uncritically on what your “Revisionist” gurus tell you. That way you may avoid making a fool of yourself.


10.12.2006
12:00 hours GMT

Denierbud apparently replaced his last post recorded on 08.12.2006 with another one, and the discussion between denierbud and 64HolocaustScholar64 keeps turning out more “Revisionist” inanity from the former.

My favorite among today’s record: denierbud’s attempt to cover up his dishonest omission of Wiernik’s mention of gasoline used to burn the bodies in the initial incineration experiments at Treblinka, by mouthing off about Wiernik’s oh-so-ridiculous reference to camouflage against aerial observation during those experiments.

This camouflage issue was the subject of one of my discussions of the Stormfront «Holocaust Thread», more precisely of one of the posts not published there because of the moderator’s censorship, which is now transcribed in my RODOH post # 7393. As explained there, the camouflage thing is not as ridiculous as denierbud hysterically pretends.

But that is not the point. The point is that denierbud mendaciously tried to make believe that the burning of the corpses at Treblinka, according to Wiernik, had employed no additional fuel at all but relied on the women’s bodies burning «on their own, like wood». I quote the part of my related article in which I exposed denierbud’s mendacity in this respect:

2. Bud’s second attempt to cheat his viewers is rather obvious. Bud points out the following passages of Wiernik’s account, which can be found in Chapter 9 of A Year in Treblinka:

It turned out that bodies of women burned more easily than those of men. Accordingly, the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires.

and claims (by asking a rhetorical question) that Wiernik tried to make believe that the women burned «on their own, like wood».

This is nonsense, of course. The context provided by other evidence shows that what Wiernik probably meant was that the bodies of women, which would burn better than those of man due to their higher fat content, were placed at the bottom of a pile of corpses to be incinerated so that they might help the incineration of the less fatty male corpses above them. This practice was described by another eyewitness, Yechiel Reichman, who is quoted as follows on page 175 of Yitzhak Arad’s book Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Operation Reinhard Death Camps (emphases are mine):

The SS "expert" on body burning ordered us to put women, particularly fat women, on the first layer of the grill, face down. The second layer could consist of whatever was brought – men, women, or children – and so on, layer on top of layer … Then the "expert" ordered us to lay dry branches under the grill and to light them. Within a few minutes the fire would take so it was difficult to approach the crematorium from as far as 50 meters away ...

As we can see, the use of women for "kindling" in the way described by Reichman did not exclude the use of external flammables, expressly mentioned by this witness. This shows that there is no reason to assume that Wiernik intended to exclude the use of wood or other flammables when stating that the bodies of women were used for "kindling the fires"; he might have simply considered the use of wood or other external flammables as a given and therefore not worth mentioning. But actually Wiernik did mention other flammables in his description of the procedure in question. For if we read a little further on in Chapter 9 from the passage pointed out by Bud, we find the following:

Nevertheless, the results were very poor. The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn.

The text in Bud’s version reads as follows:

The results were very poor. The male corpses would not burn at all, although they were sprinkled with benzine. The expense was considerable and the results inadequate.

Not only did Wiernik clearly state that an external flammable – gasoline – was used to burn the corpses, he also pointed out that this procedure was ineffective and very expensive, because "the male corpses simply would not burn" despite the female bodies placed at the bottom of the piles of bodies to be burned and the gasoline that these piles were doused with.

So how come Bud didn’t tell his viewers about this passage, which completely invalidates his claim that Wiernik tried to make believe that women burned «on their own, like wood»? Did he miss it? Hardly so, as we can expect Bud to have read Wiernik’s account very carefully, looking for passages he could make a fuss about. The conclusion is inescapable that our friend Bud simply lied to his viewers, by deliberately omitting a passage that invalidated his claim.


Also amusing is denierbud’s proud presentation of some of Mattogno’s “evidence” in support of his claim that Treblinka was a transit camp for Jews being deported “to the East”, to the occupied Soviet territories: a Radio Moscow broadcast about 8,000 Jews found in Ukraine by the Soviets! The report referred to non-Soviet Jews (from France IIRC), but how can such a report be looked upon as evidence that any Jews transported to Treblinka were moved onward from there to a destination in the occupied Soviet territories? And why does Mattogno have to present a presumably unconfirmed radio broadcast as evidence in support of his resettlement claims, when the resettlement of about 1.4 million people transported to the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps should have left behind a huge paper trail of transportation documents, correspondence, memoranda and other records pertaining to the transportation itself and the administrative handling of the resettlement, as well as thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses from among the German organizers, administrators and guard soldiers, Polish railway workers, local inhabitants at the final destinations and especially the surviving deportees themselves? By showing that he is reduced to presenting as “evidence” stuff like a radio broadcast about Jews allegedly found in Ukraine by the Soviets, Mattogno is revealing how piss-poor his case his and how idiotic his resettlement claims are. And by referring to such “evidence” as if it had any significance, denierbud is once more showing himself to be what we already know he is: a denier nincompoop faithfully glued to pre-conceived notions the imbecility of which is obvious to anyone with a capacity for critical thinking.

denierbud | December 09, 2006
--CONTINUED--
Jews were told they were being put on trains and shipped East where they would find work. That was true.

Jews were told they were stopping at Treblinka where they would take a shower and be deloused. That was true. It wasn't a camouflage story for a deathcamp.

Furthermore, in Carlo Mattogno and Jurgen Graf's book "Treblinka" page 253 of the Pdf version, there is a section "6. Final Destination of Jews Deported to the East" where there is given example after example of Jews being deported East. Pg. 257 for instance mentions a Radio Moscow broadcast of finding 8,000 Jews in the Ukraine when the Soviets took over that area.

The PDF version of this book is a free download at VHO.


denierbud | December 09, 2006
Hi 64Holocaustscholar64

I simply can't post under "Episode 29 Alexander Donat's Book" Yet, here on my profile I can post no problem.

Your question "Where is your evidence that Jews were deloused at these camps and then sent East?"

I'll try to paraphrase what Carlo Mattogno writes in his book "Belzec" page 108 pdf version (the page before the conclusion):

When you look at all the evidence that these camps were deathcamps, and none of it holds up, and you realize the camps were not deathcamps, you can then assume that the supposed lies told by the Nazis were true:

--CONTINUED--


denierbud | December 08, 2006
Hi 64Holocaustscholar64

They didn't kill thousands at once in the euthanasia program.

You mention my lying by ommission in the Wiernik part. O.k. I'll post it right here. This ridiculous passage for all to see LOL:

"The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn. Whenever an airplane was sighted overhead, all work was stopped, the corpses were covered with foliage as camouflage against aerial observation."

Like it's Gilligan's Island. "Oh, A plane!! Get the branches damn it!! Now!!"

For 64Holocaustscholar64, this is that part that gives Arad and Wiernik credibility.


64holocaustscholar64 | December 08, 2006
Hi Denierbud,

"To get an idea of this, consider that the West German government likely killed Auschwitz Commandante Richard Baer in the '60s."

Sorry Denierbud, "likely" isn't good enough. But then again, that's the fun part of "Revisionism": No evidence required!

"And when you suggest I read Arad, you lose credibility, because anyone who watches ch. 1 of this movie can see he's a dishonest scholar because he uses Yankel Wiernik."

I watched chapter one and caught you lying by ommision. You know what I'm talking about. You "forgot" to show us the part were Wiernik talks about petrol being doused on the corpses. And that's just one example. tsk,tsk tsk.


64holocaustscholar64 | December 08, 2006
"The euthanasia program never used a diesel engine to make gas."

Yeah, but they killed and had experience in killing innocents. Not to mention that gasoline engines were most certainly used in the AR camps.

"So the euthanasia workers' experience with gassing people wasn't going to help with the different alleged method used at the Rheinhardt camps."

("Reinhardt", Denierbud) Are you kidding? Somebody who had experience in killing thousands of innocents at once is definitely what was needed!

"On top of that, it's said it was the Ukrainians who did the actual gassing. For instance Ivan and Nickolai at Treblinka. So how does that fit into your theory that they needed the euthanasia workers to help with the gassing?"

I never said that "they" needed euthanasia workers to turn on the engines, I said that the Nazis needed euthanasia workers to participate in the killings.

You stil haven't answered my question: Why are euthanasia workers needed for a transit camp?


denierbud | December 08, 2006
Hi 64Holocaustscholar64

The Soviet Union wasn't particularly helpful with gathering revisionist evidence during and after WWII. Neither was West Germany. The West German government would have never released revisionist information if they had it. To get an idea of this, consider that the West German government likely killed Auschwitz Commandante Richard Baer in the '60s. Just before a trial was about to start. Similarly, I don't know a single account where one of the accused Germans wrote some sort of rebuttal, or short autobiography that ever made it to the public.

The main revisionist point is that it's very clear the standard story isn't true.

And when you suggest I read Arad, you lose credibility, because anyone who watches ch. 1 of this movie can see he's a dishonest scholar because he uses Yankel Wiernik.



08.12.2006
12:15 hours GMT

Denierbud keeps trying to fend off the questions and arguments of 64holocaustscholar64. My favorite line among Bud’s latest piss-poor contentions is the following:

«And you suggest I read Arad. You mean the guy who uses Yankel Wiernik as maybe his biggest source?»

Shall we conclude from this that Bud didn’t read Arad’s book, even though he makes a fuss about what Arad wrote throughout his video? The claim that Arad «uses Yankel Wiernik as maybe his biggest source» so suggests, or then he is simply lying. Arad draws on a variety of testimonies of survivors, German documents, Polish underground sources, testimonies by Poles and Germans and other evidence, and Wiernik’s is but one of the survivor testimonies he uses. As to Bud’s claim that using Wiernik as evidence is fallacious, see this article.

The point of using T4 personnel at the AR camps was not necessarily experience in killing with gas, by the way. I’d say the T4 folks’ main «qualification» was their demonstrated willingness to kill or assist in the killing of helpless, innocent people without blinking an eye.

Let’s see how long it takes for 64holocaustscholar64 to be blocked from denierbud’s page.

denierbud | December 07, 2006
--CONTINUED--

Deniers say the holocaust didn't happen, but it's hard for us to say what exactly did happen. The Soviet Union wasn't particularly helpful with gathering revisionist evidence during and after WWII. Neither was West Germany. The West German government under Willy Brandt was anti-Nazi.

Considering that, I don't know a single account where one of the accused Germans wrote some sort of rebuttal, or bio.

The main revisionist point is that it's very clear the standard story isn't true.

And you suggest I read Arad. You mean the guy who uses Yankel Wiernik as maybe his biggest source?


denierbud | December 07, 2006
Hi 64HolocaustScholar64

The euthanasia program never used a diesel engine to make gas. They used bottled CO and lethal injection. So the euthanasia workers' experience with gassing people wasn't going to help with the different alleged method used at the Rheinhardt camps. On top of that, it's said it was the Ukrainians who did the actual gassing. For instance Ivan and Nickolai at Treblinka. So how does that fit into your theory that they needed the euthanasia workers to help with the gassing?


64holocaustscholar64 | December 07, 2006
This is why I don't like anti-denial laws. Because "Revisionists" use them as an excuse for their miserable "Research". They are also counterproductive in other ways.

Now, take a look at my explanations:

1) You haven't read Arad's book or you need to read it again, because it's common knowledge that the men sent to the AR camps were indeed euthanasia men. I left the book at home, but look in the beginning were he talks about the German personell.

2) You don't have any evidence that "The euthanasia people were never at the delousing camps. Rather the accusation was pinned on them for A) as revenge for the euthanasia, and B) to make the deathcamps story seem more plausible.", and until you do, don't offer that explanation of obvious reasons.

3) You need to simply google "Operation Reinhard + euthanasia" (why couldn't you do that again?) and need to give evidence for your mendacious claims.

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E , please.


64holocaustscholar64 | December 07, 2006
Hi Denierbud,

" If the Reinhardt camps had been deathcamps, the type of employees you'd want are drill seargeant types, tough guys, former cops."

No, you'd want somebody with experience in killing with gas, which is exactly what the Nazis needed.

"Not male nurses who used to work at a hospital"

Yep, hospitals were thousands were murdered with gas.

"The people convicted for Treblinka and Sobibor were male nurses largely."

Yep, "male nurses" who helped accomplish the murder of 70,000 victims.

"No need for male nurses."

But you would need people who have experience in kiling with gas.


--CONTINUED--
denierbud | December 07, 2006
Lastly, euthanasia didn't involve thousands of killings at once. They were done at medical clinics like Hadamar. Severely disabled aren't going to offer a lot of resistance. If the Reinhardt camps had been deathcamps, the type of employees you'd want are drill seargeant types, tough guys, former cops. Not male nurses who used to work at a hospital. The people convicted for Treblinka and Sobibor were male nurses largely. It's in the video somewhere. There's nothing that "medical" about a deathcamp. No need for male nurses.





07.12.2006
11:02 hours GMT

As I predicted, someone asked the inconvenient question why the folks they sent to run the AR camps had been previously involved in the “euthanasia” killings.

And it’s fun to see denierbud trying to wriggle his way out of that question. The part of his babbling I like best is this: «The euthanasia program was controversial and so was shipping Jews East to work camps.»

So mass murder is a «controversial» issue for denierbud. That’s good to know.

denierbud | December 06, 2006
Number 3 I have to attribute to Germar Rudolf in his epilogue to Mattogno and Graf's book Treblinka. Page 308.


denierbud | December 06, 2006
--CONTINUED--

3) The euthanasia people DID work at the delousing camps. The reason is that they were shown to be capable of working in controversial programs. The euthanasia program was controversial and so was shipping Jews East to work camps.


denierbud | December 06, 2006
Hi 64HolocaustScholar64 ,

I'm not sure. Because holocaust denial is such a small and dissident movement, We've never had the resources to figure out exactly what did happen. David Irving, for instance, investigated things like this, but he's in jail, and has been banned from the German archives and from visiting Auschwitz. I can offer up some possibilities to your question:

1) The euthanasia people were never at the delousing camps. Rather the accusation was pinned on them for A) as revenge for the euthanasia, and B) to make the deathcamps story seem more plausible.

2) The delousing camps people were never involved in euthanasia. It was an accusation pinned on them along with all the other lies. Kurt Franz and all the ridiculous stories about him is a good example. Calling somebody "a euthanasia man" has the same diabolical quality as all the other lies.
--CONTINUED--


64holocaustscholar64 | December 06, 2006
So you say that Euthanasia program happened. (the murder of ~70,000 Germans) Interesting.

Can you then please explain to me why the majority of the men sent to the Operation Reinhard camps were from the Euthanasia program?

Men who helped kill 70,000 people were needed for a "transit" camp. I definitely believe you know! :-D




04.12.2006
16:30 hours GMT

Denierbud gives his valued opinion about the Nazi “euthanasia” program. I especially like the part where he muses that the Nazis carried out this mass murder of physically and/or mentally handicapped people «to strengthen their own racial stock, similar to how farmers do the same thing with animals».

Careful, Bud, this may be a trap – next thing your interlocutor could ask you is why most of the folks they sent to run the AR camps had been previously involved in the “euthanasia” killings.

denierbud | December 04, 2006
Hi Onesimas1976,

Yes, the euthanasia program really happened. And Samuel Crowell in his book Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, points out that that made the Nazis sitting ducks for the holocaust propaganda. The euthanasia program made the Nazis vulnerable to allegations of genocide.

The Germans did the euthanasia program to strengthen their own racial stock, similar to how farmers do the same thing with animals. For the Nazis Jews weren't in the same category as mentally retarded, though most Americans see the Nazis hating anything "inferior." The Nazis didn't consider the Jews part of their race. They wanted them out. Thus euthanasia and the alleged holocaust are not part and parcel the same thing.


Onesimos1976 | December 03, 2006
Hi Denierbud!
I have question for you: what do you think about the Euthanasiaprogram the nazis had before and during the war? Was mentally incompetent and hancicapped people gassed en masse? It seems to me that the main problem to you is the gassing of JEWS. Or am I wrong? Is it wrong to gas mentally incompetent people?

Best,
Onesimos

Ps: English is not my first launguage, so i am sorry if i made any mistakes. I sent this question to Mark Weber and IHR, but i didn´t get anykind of answer. I hope you would be the first revisionist, who answers my question.




28.11.2006
12:03 hours GMT

Denierbud & friends chat about the subject matter of UVP clip # 9, which has been debunked here.

denierbud | November 26, 2006
--continued--

Convincing the Norman Rockwell types in small town America that we were indeed fighting the good fight.

Correction. Ship name wasn't "Atalante" I believe is was Altalena.


denierbud | November 26, 2006
Yes, Hillel Kook, who came to the USA and changed his name to "Peter Bergson" and engaged in putting ads in the New York Times showing a drawing of Jewish baby with a bullet through it's head, with text that asked for money.

Later Kook was actually on the ship Atalante carrying weapons and fighters to Israel, when the Ben Gurion Israeli forces shelled the ship and sunk it. Kook was in an Israeli prison after that for awhile.

This is the close pal of Ben Hecht. The guy who brought the holocaust story to the Reader's Digest reading heartland of America.


whodareswings | November 25, 2006
>Is the Feb 43 Reader's digest available online somewhere?

If this is about Ben Hecht's article see his l944 book A GUIDE FOR THE BEDEVILED. It's full of Holocaust preposterousness. Hecht was a
prevaricating Zionist propagandist. He was a member of "the
Benson Boys," Hillel Kook's Irgun cell in Wash DC.


whodareswings | November 25, 2006
>Is the Feb 43 Reader's digest available online somewhere?

If this is a reference to the Ben Hecht article, the gist of that piece went into his l944 book entitled A GUIDE FOR THE BEDEVILED.
It's teaming with Holocaust preposterousness. Hecht was a prevaricating Zionist propagandist. A member of Hillel Kook's Irgun.




26.11.2006
00:33 hours GMT

Having got rid of the inconvenient deconneurnot by blocking him, denierbud enjoys a pleasant chat with friends.

seminumerical | November 25, 2006
Is the Feb 43 Reader's digest available online somewhere?


denierbud | November 25, 2006
Hi Chris,

No. Not at the moment. At the moment I'm trying to get out of this for awhile.

I think it would be good if others made videos based on their experiences of learning about the holocaust.


chrismazerall | November 24, 2006
Are there any new projects in the works?



24.11.2006
19:02 hours GMT

Denierbud rambles away, displays his ignorance, rambles away again and … bans deconneurnot. At least he announces the blocking this time; in my case he didn't even do that.

Congratulations, deconneurnot! You have joined the club of folks who give denierbud cold feet.

denierbud | November 23, 2006
Hi Deconneunot,

I didn't think you refuted the explosion experiments at all.

And why always bring in new material? I've never heard of the Rumbula massacre. Supposedly happened in Latvia? Doesn't relate to the movie at all does it? My movie deals with 3 camps in Poland. That my movie deals with 3 camps in Poland wasn't an invitation to discuss every other detail you know about the alleged holocaust

Since you rarely talk about the movie, and are not posting under the episodes even when you do talk about the movie, I'm going to block you.


deconneurnot | November 23, 2006
Re Denierbud

>You can't take on the 4 hours of content of this movie

I just blew apart your attempt to explain away the explosion experiments...excuse the pun.


deconneurnot | November 23, 2006
I had to do some really hard googling, but came upon the the transcript of a conversation between Generalmajor BRUNS and Captd GÖTTINGEN on 8 April 1945 in a POW camp run by C. S. D. I. C.

http://www.nizkor.or g/ftp.cgi/places/ftp .py?places//latvia/r umbula/massacre.4111 30

Again, about half way down the page you can see the transcript and references to the Rumbula massacre.

The irony is, however, that the files in this case were originally found by David Irving.


denierbud | November 23, 2006
Hey Deconneunot,

60 years after the war, and there's always some new evidence just around the corner that you can't present now, but wait till it comes out. You can't take on the 4 hours of content of this movie. But wait till this new evidence comes out, just around the corner...



23.11.2006
18:42 hours GMT

Denierbud gets hysterical, deconneurnot replies nonchalantly, denierbud fails to understand another poster’s point and falsely claims that Wiernik mentioned a diesel gassing engine.

deconneurnot | November 23, 2006
Re Denierbud

>You're not able to offer a link to any of that.

Now you know that I don't have access to the archives. However, the archives official web page acknowledges the facts that German soldiers of all ranks were well aware of what was happening to the Jews in Europe. I hear that a German historian has written a book based on these files. The English version comes out soon i think....so all will be revealed. No doubt another nail in the denialist coffin.


denierbud | November 23, 2006
Hi 64HolocaustScholar64 ,

Considering that Wiernik says it was a diesel engine. Considering that I have footage of Eliyahu Rosenberg saying it was a diesel engine; considering that I show passages in both Arad and Hilberg mentioning that it was a diesel engine, and also show where Gerstein says it was a diesel engine, I don't think it's a moot point.


64holocaustscholar64 | November 22, 2006
Hi denierbud,

Why do you even have an episode devoted to diesel exhaust?
Gasoline engines were almost certainly used, which contain 5% CO in idling condition.
The entire diesel issue is irrelevant; your episode four has been proven to be moot.


denierbud | November 22, 2006
Hi Deconneurnot,

I see you can't name a single name of a Nazi who was secretly taped. And you've never heard the tapes, you've just heard OF the tapes.

You can't produce a digitized recording of the tape, you can't offer a name of someone recorded, and can't offer a transcript. You're not able to offer a link to any of that.



22.11.2006
18:37 hours GMT

Ongoing discussion between deconneurnot and denierbud, with the latter making a fool of himself.

deconneurnot | November 22, 2006
Re Denierbud

> I think you made this up.

Oh did I now....Try this link then and see for yourself.


http://www.archives. gov/iwg/reports/june -2000.html

You will have to read quite a bit, but the relevant section is about 3/4 of the way down.

Happy reading.


denierbud | November 22, 2006
Hey Deconneunot,

Nice try with the "evidence is in the National Archives."

Why don't you name one POW who was secretly recorded and said that.

I've never heard of any historian mentioning such evidence. I think you made this up.



20.11.2006
22:30 hours GMT

Deconneurnot reads like he's quite knowledgeable.

And he’s right about Manstein lying. The great commander’s involvement in mass killings of Jews in his command area is mentioned here.

deconneurnot | November 20, 2006
PanzerAces

>He and Erich von Manstein and several others never knew about something so "big" is really fascinating..

Then I would assume they were all lying!

This contrasts greatly with secret recordings made by British intellegence of German POWs held captive. Many captives discussed the killings of the jews and murders in the concentration camps. Indeed SS POWs quite openly bragged about their acts in the murder of jews. Records are kept in the National Archives.


PanzerAces | November 19, 2006
Hi denierbud,

Have you read Karl Doenitz' Memoirs: 10 years and 20 days? It's funny because a man who has given so many anti-semitic speeches throughout his naval career claims that he did not know about the holocaust untill he was shown pictures of it from "Stars & Stripes". He and Erich von Manstein and several others never knew about something so "big" is really fascinating.

deconneurnot | November 16, 2006
Re: JozefOrwid

>I hope you aren't French,

Why is that? Are you?

>Because you gave no valid criticism besides mawkish rants

Oh yes?..So what intellectual excitement do you bring to the forum then?

>and you would have put the shame on your whole nation (provided you consider her to be your nation).

and why would that be?


JozefOrwid | November 16, 2006
"déconneur"not?

I hope you aren't French, because you gave no valid criticism besides mawkish rants and you would have put the shame on your whole nation (provided you consider her to be your nation).




9.11.2006

19:10 hours GMT

Ongoing discussion between denierbud and deconneurnot, now also joined by sobe104839 and Calymath. Enjoy it while it lasts, denierbud may soon start deleting posts again.

denierbud | November 08, 2006
I'm not going to block you. I have the same youtube problem. You have to hit your reload button on your browser or click, "view all comments."

Just post what you have to say, without the "why are you hiding?" or "Is that the best you can do?" and stuff like that. I'll try and do the same. I know it's an emotional issue, but let's try to stay above board.


Calymath | November 08, 2006
How's debate on the level of academic journals going Bud?


deconneurnot | November 08, 2006
Just tried posting there twice. Nothing happened. My post didn't appear. Well I've said what I need to anyway. If you want to block me...go ahead.


sobe104839 | November 08, 2006
Yes, you're right denierbud. But re: Explosives-Decconertrout is right, we have EYEWITNESS testimony regarding an EXPERIMENT and all denierbud has to say for that whole testimony, to debunk it is: They wouldn't." Of course, no proof is presented. Look up "experiment" in your dictionary denierbud.


denierbud | November 08, 2006
Hi Deconneurnot,

I didn't forget to mention it. Arad doesn't mention it either. I don't know about the guy you mentioned. Post under the video chapter. Your comments about this should have gone under "Ridiculous Experiments." If you post it there, and anyone reads your writing and also watches the video, they will be able to see how ridiculous the experiment you're supporting is.

Also. No more agitation comments. And no more posts to my profile. If you want to make a comment on the movie, do it under a video chapters in a polite and non-agitating way. There won't be a second warning. I'll just block you from posting here.


deconneurnot | November 08, 2006
>I didn't forget to mention that. I got the Arad book, opened it to page 10, photographed the page and highlighted the the name "Dr. Widman" and put it in my movie.

but what you forgot to mention was that there was more than one witness to the experiments with explosives wasn't there. And this witness gave his statement to the German Law Courts.

If this is the best you can do, then you are on a hiding to nothing when you attempt to refute the arguments coming out of HC.


denierbud | November 07, 2006
Hi Sobe,

You wrote, "Also, denierbud, ARAD mentions Dr. Widdman. Yet, you somehow forgot to mention this."

I didn't forget to mention that. I got the Arad book, opened it to page 10, photographed the page and highlighted the the name "Dr. Widman" and put it in my movie.


sobe104839 | November 07, 2006
Beautiful. That's the could woulda shoulda crap coming from denierbud. Also, denierbud, ARAD mentions Dr. Widdman. Yet, you somehow forgot to mention this. I don't have the book anymore, but it's at the beginning, chapter one. Oh yeah, come to RODOH, we'll have a party. Well, unless of course you're avoiding debate with experts on the subject like Roberto, etc. It's kind of like if I said that won't debate with Berg because he insulted me. It would sound like I'm running away, doesn't it?


deconneurnot | November 07, 2006
>It's clearly a bad war propaganda story on par with Yankel Wiernik's tales.>

Lose the point, so make the usual denialist claims of lies and propaganda.

Cool. Is that the best you can do?

Now, of course if you can prove the explosives experiment is a lie, then do so. I bet you can't though.


denierbud | November 07, 2006
They wouldn't have had to try it, to know it's not a good idea. It's obviously not a good idea to begin with. It's clearly a bad war propaganda story on par with Yankel Wiernik's tales.


deconneurnot | November 07, 2006
>And that's the way intelligent people would try to formulate a mass-killing system? C'mon.

Oh so because you happen to think it was not an intelligent idea...(a conclusion the Nazis came to after they tried it out), it could not have possibly have taken place. Sorry, but a key German witness said it did, whether you think it was unlikely or not.

To say that in "your opinion" it was "unlikely to have happened" is not good enough for me.


denierbud | November 06, 2006
Hi Deconneurnot,

And that's the way intelligent people would try to formulate a mass-killing system? C'mon.


deconneurnot | November 06, 2006
>I've never heard of Jaschke. Where did you find his information?

He was a witness in the Widmann trial. Information comes from Rees' book on Auscwitz, p86. Jaschke's testimony can be found in the "Staatsarchiv Ludwigsberg EL 317 III,Bu 53."

Room does not allow me to type out his statement except to give the following...

"Body parts were scattered around the ground and hanging in the trees


6.11.2006

11:26 hours GMT

Ongoing conversation between deconneurnot and denierbud:

denierbud | November 05, 2006
Hi Deconneurnot,

I've never heard of Jaschke. Where did you find his information? Also, This is within the size that youtube allows, so please post it under the "ridiculous experiments chapter."
--thanks,


deconneurnot | November 05, 2006
Ok here's one for you..

You claim that the Nazis' experimentation with explosives to kill prisoners did not take place. How do you explain therefore the statement of Captain Wilhelm Jaschke of Einsatzkommando 8 who witnessed that it did indeed take place?


deconneurnot | November 04, 2006
Re Sidiousdixit

>What's with this episode, 'Haircut'...

come on Denierbud....you have had a couple of days to respond to this question. What's taking you? Don't you want to know what our friend here is refering to?



1.11.2006

17:24 hours GMT

Sidiousdixit | November 01, 2006
Ok, then. Being a skeptic myself and with a growing interest on the subject of Holocaustianity I will take the side of the antirevisionists (antideniers depending on the opinion of each one)... What's with this episode, 'Haircut'...



31.10.2006

12:58 hours GMT

Don't know about you, folks, but I'm enjoying this ongoing chat between deconneurnot and denierbud ...

deconneurnot | October 30, 2006
>Yet you don't want to make a single comment within those confines.>

Not a case of don't want...more a case of can't. I certainly cannot be bothered with the fuss of sending separate messages.

>That's hardly a postage stamp.>

Let's try the analogy of a "post it " note then.


denierbud | October 30, 2006
Whatever Deconneurnot, there's example after example of people who do just fine within the confines of the youtube comments. Yet you don't want to make a single comment within those confines.

This post is around 200 characters. With three posts you'd have 7.5 times that.

That's hardly a postage stamp.


deconneurnot | October 30, 2006
>I've never deleted you here, so why can't you post here?

Correct, you have not deleted me, however, it is impossible here to write out an extended answer. The site here will not except it.

>Hoping to see rebuttal comments from you under the videos soon

Well, you'll be waiting a long time then, because the sort of reply i would like to give will not fit on here.

Basically what you are saying is by all means refute my videos, but make sure you write it on the back of a postage stamp!

Well done, so now you can brag that I cannot write a reply and you win.

Cool!


denierbud | October 30, 2006
Hi Deconneurnot,

Read both places and post what you find here.

I've never deleted you here, so why can't you post here?

I don't want to spend 5-10 minutes reading your comments on another forum. I want to spend 1-2 minutes reading them here. In that sense the word limit is good.

Truth can say a lot with few words.

--Hoping to see rebuttal comments from you under the videos soon
--Denierbud


deconneurnot | October 30, 2006
>You'd rather everyone spend 5-10 minutes of their day reading Deconneurnot's comment on some other forum.

Why not? Do you have a problem with that?

>And not the forum which I recommend which is codoh.com, (with a 'c') but one of your choice.

What...and get my posts deleted? Or is it that rodoh has got members there with far more knowledge than me who might also have something to say. I can well understand your fear of going there.

Come to rodoh. There are members there who will back your ideas to the hilt. Unlike codoh where you would be hard pressed to see any holocaust support whatsoever.



29.10.2006

There are these two new posts, not worth saying anything about.

lanciafiamme2002 | October 29, 2006
Should the Holocaust be based on faith? The JDL is in denial. They use brutal force to silence objective information. The JDL uses subjective ways to reason their beliefs about the holocaust by using an emotional tactic. Emotional tactics are tool to help students absorb propaganda more easily through feelings. If a student questions an event in the holocaust and finds inconstancies should their investigation be base on facts or feelings? If they are based on feelings we lean towards a subjective construction which now makes the holocaust a religion its now a matter of faith.


ganzganzneu | October 29, 2006
...und deine Eltern hatten niemals für dich Zeit...



28.10.2006 and 29.10.2006

Ongoing discussion between denierbud and deconneurnot, with denierbud repeating his usual mantra of requesting rebuttals, deconneurnot pointing out that rebuttals are already under way and challenging denierbud to a discussion on RODOH, and denierbud weaseling out of that invitation by requesting rebuttals in 500-character YouTube mini-posts with time-outs every three posts (much rebuttal can be done that way, for sure), squealing that he would rather debate on CODOH (where he would have a friendly moderator covering his back and deleting his opponents’ posts when they are too good) and baiting deconneurnot about his supposed inability to debunk the videos. If you’re not willing to do that in 500-character YouTube mini-posts with time-outs every three posts or on a forum where your wings will be cut off as soon as you get your opponent into trouble, then you’re not able to do that, denierbud claims. Duh!

denierbud | October 29, 2006
Hi Deconneurnot,

Oh, so holocaust denial is easily refuted but you're not going to post a comment under one of my chapters. O.K.

You can post 3 times with 500 characters each time before there is a youtube timeout. That takes people about a minute or two to read. But that's not long enough for you. You'd rather everyone spend 5-10 minutes of their day reading Deconneurnot's comment on some other forum. And not the forum which I recommend which is codoh.com, (with a 'c') but one of your choice.

I don't think you can refute these videos and that's why there's all this hemming and hawing about all kinds of stuff.


deconneurnot | October 29, 2006
>Except if there was a video on youtube that said that the earth was flat, you could easily rebut it from a thousand angles.

As has been frequently done regarding holocaust revisionism.

>I don't see you rebutting any of my 30 chapters.

I don't have to. Someone else has done it for me. I'm just sitting here glued to the computer screen waiting for the responses you are going to give us.

Bye the way, I have just spent the last 1/2 hour writing a response to your question, to see it not accepted. Come to Rodoh instead and make your points there.


denierbud | October 28, 2006
Deconneurnot wrote

" Holocaust denialism belongs with the last 3 crank beliefs."

Except if there was a video on youtube that said that the earth was flat, you could easily rebut it from a thousand angles.

I don't see you rebutting any of my 30 chapters. Go ahead. Comment on one of them. Go read Holocaust Controversies. Learn everything you can, and take the best points and come back here and post a comment under appropriate video.

Look forward to reading your comments Deconneurnot.


deconneurnot | October 28, 2006


I can't wait to see your theories as to why not.

>I will address those "Holocaust Controversies" rebuttals at some point nevertheless

I hope you provide a better argument than the "could haves" and the "might haves" that you tried to fob me off with in an earlier discussion.



27.10.2006

Sidiousdixit also asked denierbud which "academic community" he would listen to. See how denierbud tries to weasel his way out of answering this question and identifying said "academic community" - never mind that, in his "Rebuttals Page" under http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/rebuttals.html , he had written that he had contacted one specific academic community: «I’m only accepting rebuttals from a specific academic community which I have solicited. That community has an email with which to contact me which I provided in the solicitation.»

denierbud | October 27, 2006
And to answer your question "which academic community" the answer is this: One that will allow me to place an ad in their student newspaper. You'd think "o.k. free country, I made a movie. I can place an ad for this movie in the paper." Wrong. You only think it's a free country because you have nothing truly controversial to say.

When you do have something controversial to say, and try to place an ad, you find it's not a free country.


To Sidiousdixit’s inconvenient questions, denierbud responds with the usual mantra:

1. He requested rebuttals from an "academic community" (he hasn’t yet told anyone what community that would be) because he doesn’t want to be called names and "put down" – as if that in any way affected the quality of the rebuttals, as if there was anything "academic" about denierbud’s propaganda clips, and as if the filth he produced didn’t warrant calling a spade a spade. Sidiousdixit has already told him that and why he understands the "vitriolic" tone of our rebuttals.

2. He claims that the rebuttals he has read "aren’t very good" but that he will address them "at some point nevertheless". Yeah, we’re looking forward to that, assuming it will ever happen. But why, then, doesn’t he link to us? If our rebuttals don’t scratch his fabulous clips, doing so could only be to his advantage. Denierbud is obviously not convinced of what he claims. His justification for not linking to us? Well, I have read the paragraph supposedly containing that justification three times now, and I still can’t figure it out.

3. He repeats the usual invitation to rebut his clips in comments underneath each video on YouTube. Maybe I’m not the last who will tell him that and why it is nonsense to expect substantiated rebuttals to be made in 500-character mini-posts with time-outs every three posts, which are all the YT software allows for - and that YouTube is also not the only place where his clips are being paraded, thus calling for a response that is not limited to YouTube.

denierbud | October 27, 2006
Because when you solicit rebuttals from an academic community, they don't make up names to call you like "Ugly Voice" and put you down. Plus some of the people I'm soliciting have phd's in the field. I'd rather hear their rebuttals. Plus the rebuttals I've read there aren't very good

I will address those "Holocaust Controversies" rebuttals at some point nevertheless. But I won't be linking to that site. It's not like I have a list of links somewhere. They expect me to put a link to their site on my main page. LOL.

Plus, if you see a strong point in their rebuttals. Come over here and post it under the appropriate video. I've asked a number of people to do this, and no one has. Maybe you could be the first.

If their rebuttals are so strong. Bring the knowledge you get from them over here and post it.


26.10.2006

Sidiousdixit asks denierbud the inconvenient questions that denierbud so much hates to read:

Sidiousdixit | October 26, 2006
Which 'Academic Community' would you exactly support and listen? Why are the rebuttals of the weblog 'Holocaust Controversies' not strong enough for you? Why not link to that website? Hell, I read their material and let me tell you those guys were better than I expected. Quite vitriolic though (then again, who wouldn't, suppossing they were in the right side)


Denierbud backs down and tries to appease his angry opponent, without however letting go of his articles of faith:

denierbud | October 26, 2006
Hi Robbie,

I'm sorry what happened to your great grandmother's brothers and sisters.

I don't know what happened to them.

But I can tell you that they didn't die in gas chambers at Treblinka, Sobibor, or Belzec.


Denierbud’s cry-baby whining, however, fails to answer RobbieApok’s question about what became of his relatives, as RobbieApok points out:

RobbieApok | October 26, 2006
hey great your just scared shitless because thats the only thing you said about... you just didn't answer my question, do you want me to repeat it again?


Taking advantage of RobbieApok’s angry «I hope I meet you and wipe the shit out of you», denierbud breaks into hypocritical cry-baby whining about German hate speech legislation and such:

denierbud | October 26, 2006
People wonder why few SS ever spoke up, if it was a fraud. For one, the allies successfully convinced them that there was a genocide program. Two, the SS who were close enough to really know could be prosecuted for war crimes with people like Wiernik, Razman, and Rosenberg hitting the witness stand. And three, look at RobbieApok. It's 60 years after the war. I'm a citizen of the USA and Robbie writes " hope I meet you and wipe the shit out of you." So imagine an SS man in Germany and what kind of threats etc. he would receive. An example of persecution is Willhelm Ståglich who wrote "The Auschwitz Myth" in the 1970's. He was disbarred as a lawyer and judge. He law degree was retroactively removed. Then his book was made illegal. etc.


A "Revisionist" cretin intervenes in support of denierbud:

JozefOrwid | October 26, 2006
This is an outstanding set of videos that impressed me much. You showed the way of the future of revisionism. You are a prophet.

RobbieApok:
My greatgrandmother, told ME that she had her 4 brothers and 2 sisters gone to execution camps. They were never seen again.

Provided that what you state is true, i.e. she had 4 brothers and 2 sisters whom died during the war and whom died into German camps, there are much better explanations than diesel exhaust from a rusty soviet tank engine or insecticide thrown into rooms nearby cultivated fields.



25.10.2006

Later in the day …

… some people who got angry at denierbud’s video filth tell him so, and Bud challenges one of them to "start rebutting the videos" (in YouTube mini-posts with time-outs, of course, as he doesn’t want any other discussion of his trash – except of course for rebuttals from that "specific academic community" he supposedly contacted).

denierbud | October 25, 2006
Hi Epicure,

Well then start rebutting the videos. Let's see if you can say exactly where I'm wrong. Look forward to your comments under the videos.

I'm not an "aryan nation" type of guy, but that's the straw man portrayal you have to put up since you can't refute my videos.


RobbieApok | October 25, 2006
I hope I meet you and wipe the shit out of you. My greatgrandmother, told ME that she had her 4 brothers and 2 sisters gone to execution camps. They were never seen again. were do you think they went? do you think they just disappaered into thin air??? NO! they died, as did millions of other people in those camps. were do you think these people went? well you wanted to call atention, sure you did, but u are putting yourself in great risk, because this subject is very delicate.


epicure3 | October 25, 2006
You sir, are a nutcase and that's being nice. Your revisionist theories and sparse evidence are less than weak. My guess is that you are an aryan nation kind of guy. It's tough, actually impossible, to take you seriously.


14:44 GMT

A discussion between denierbud and a new guy called deconneurnot:

denierbud | October 24, 2006

Hi Deconneunot,

Again this is pulling me out of the subject of the movie, but where did the hair come from? Consider that the biggest company at Auschwitz was IG Farben, a chemical company. Consider that a protein can be extracted from human hair called L-Cystein. Consider a food shortage. I think it had been shipped in to Auschwitz to be converted to L-Cysteine. Or there were plans for that.

As far as the clothes. The Soviets might have planted that. When you read Hilberg about what was found, it mentions stuff found in train cars. Those trains could have been transported in by the Soviets.

Plus, when a million today are allegedly killed at Auschwitz, and 3 million allegedly killed there after the war, the evidence isn't going to hedge on a single word in a document. There'd be a mountain of evidence. Picture the residents of your whole city gone, and think of the absurdity of the evidence hedging upon a word in a document.


deconneurnot | October 24, 2006

hey were careful not to write anything down and then left a huge pile of human hair? Pile of children's clothes.

Perhaps you might inform us as to where the hair and clothes came from. Oh yes, of course...they were all victims of typhus! How silly of me.


denierbud | October 23, 2006

Deconneurnot wrote

"Now if, as you said, the term had been used for describing bomb proof shelters as Butz himself stated, then we would have seen many references to the term outside the extermination camp system. We don't see one single reference."

Yes, but if it had been a turn for extermination room, it would have been used more at Auschwitz. They were careful not to write anything down and then left a huge pile of human hair? Pile of children's clothes.

But again, please ask me about Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec. The video isn't about Auschwitz.


deconneurnot | October 23, 2006

Re lanciafiamme2002



Or more likely he was just a sad, sad anti semite with a foul mouth. I hate to burst the bubble, but the denialist movement is just chocka block with sad people like GOODFELLA.


deconneurnot | October 23, 2006



"vergasungskellar" was not used widely because of the secrecy that surrounded the whole murder system. Remember that Hitler had had his fingers burnt when the information about T4 became public and Hitler was forced to shut it down.

Now if, as you said, the term had been used for describing bomb proof shelters as Butz himself stated, then we would have seen many references to the term outside the extermination camp system. We don't see one single reference.


denierbud | October 23, 2006

Comments to Sobe, Lanciaflamme, and Deconneurnot:

Hi Sobe, I'm sorry you got that note from goodfella. He was blocked from posting to my videos long ago. When he started saying stuff like that, he was deleted, when he continued, he was blocked.

Hi Lanciaflamme, Thanks. I think you may not have meant "basically Denierbud has falsified Jewish sources" LOL. I think you meant to say the Jewish sources were false.

Hi Deconneurnot: Interesting point about use of "vergasungskellar" but I was recently reading about this from a different angle: if it meant "extermination gas chamber" why isn't that word used to describe all the other "extermination gas chambers" at Auschwitz? I think (not sure) it's only used once? as a reference to one room. Auschwitz isn't my area of expertise so I don't get into it much. I focus on the Reinhard camps. I don't know much about Auschwitz.



23.10.2006

13:30 GMT

I found the following additions, some reasonable (namely that from sobe104839), some inane.

Let's see which of them stay and which are removed.

lanciafiamme2002 | October 22, 2006

However... to discredit the information denierbud's has presented from Jewish sources we can clearly see how the Holohoax has many inconsistencies.... However as one questions they are demonized.... Is the Holohoax a Religion? By analyzing Jewish sources and analyzing survivor testimonies we find inconsistencies ... basically Denierbud has falsified Jewish sources and proven that many inconsistencies obovosly exist to this hoax....


lanciafiamme2002 | October 22, 2006

However... to discredit the information denierbud's has presented from Jewish sources we can clearly see how the Holohoax has many inconsistencies.... However as one questions they are demonizecommand=entry_submit


lanciafiamme2002 | October 22, 2006

... sobe104839

Perhaps it is possible that "GOODFELLA" made that comment to discredit denierbud's information. This psychological tactic is interesting.... Even though denierbud provides insightful objective information, do we now consider it to promote hate? Absolutely not.... Denierbud is making use of logic thought, deductive and Abductive reasoning..... Maybe "GOODFELLA" is part of a Jewish Zionist organization and understands the mechanics of psychological warfare.... by making useless subjective comments about Jews "GOODFELLA" may be pushing for his own agenda ... for example: Rather to have one make use of questioning the validity of a historical event (GOODFELLA) will try to encourage his racial tactical motive by making a useless subjective comment which may discredit denierbud's objective information.


sobe104839 | October 22, 2006

Hi whoever is listening:

This comment will have no ad-hominem towards denierbud, thus there should be no reason for denierbud to delete it.
First of all, Roberto Muehlenkamf, who is a german speaker clarifies the issue and proves that "vergasungkellar" literally translates into gassing cellar. End of story.
Second of all, to denierbud, I hope you're proud. One of the dudes (specifically goodfella) which you where discussing with sent me a message telling me how much he hates Jews,here's an excerpt from his idiotic-five-year old message: "........If you're a Jew, you can eat shit.........the jews have us by the balls, mate...."
DENIERBUD, HOW DO YOU FEEL PROMOTING RACISM, ANTI-SEMITISM, AND SICK FUCKS LIKE GOODFELLA?


luxirom | October 22, 2006

what happened to the website http://www.deathcamps.org/

it's offline.. do you know why and do you maybe have an offline copy or a mirror-site on the web?

would be interesting to hear why they closed down the page...

regards!
lux


deconneurnot | October 22, 2006

>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.<

If this statement were actually true, then surely we would have more references to "Vergasunskeller" all over Germany in air raid shelters. Can you confirm this? Or are you saying that the only reference to "Vergasunskeller" is in the so called "air raid" shelters at Auschwitz?

Your "gas shelter" theory only makes sense if you can prove that the term "Vergasunskeller" had widespread use regarding air raid shelters.



21.10.2006

13:44 GMT

This post will certainly not disappear into the ether:

Horagalles | October 20, 2006

Your Video looks a bit amateurish, but nevertheless it pointed out many of the weak spots of this part of "the Holocaust" story. It also helped me searching for interesting sources. So from my side: Keep up the good work! Perhaps you could do a similar Video on Auschwitz as well? I saw you had some materials on this in the Video. There are many interisteng documents available on Auschwitz. I found the following sources very useful:
http://www.edwardvic tor.com/Holocaust/Au schwitz.htm
http://www.scrapbook pages.com/AuschwitzS crapbook/index.html
Then there is of course www.vho.org - but I think you know that. I would be ready to help out with further information and advice. Best wishes.



20.10.2006

15:44 GMT

As predicted, tintcontrol's post of yesterday has been deleted.


19.10.2006

19:32 GMT

Looks like we have another deletion candidate:

tintcontrol | October 19, 2006

If you believe denierbud's movies, you will believe anything.

Who do these amateur historians think they are fooling?

You?

http:\\holocaustcont roversies.blogspot.c om

Link to them denierbud.



18.10.2006

17:03 GMT

As I expected, Calymath’s posts of 15 October are gone. Calymath has commented about this here.


15.10.2006

20:41 GMT

Sobe104839 must have said inconvenient things and/or asked inconvenient questions, for his two posts of yesterday have disappeared.

Instead we have these new posts from Calymath, which look like they are in risk of having the same fate:

Calymath | October 15, 2006

Denierbud,

I posted early but it seems to have disappeared. As I said, my long response wouldn't appear here, so I have posted it at this link

http://holocaustcont roversies.blogspot.c om/2006/10/coward-de nierbud.html#1160930 92187302538

I would appreciate a response either here or on my youtube page, or anywhere else for that matter.


Calymath | October 15, 2006

I wrote a long reply, but unfortunately it won't show up here. I have posted it on HC itself just to keep things simple - you can view it [url=http://holocaus tcontroversies.blogs pot.com/2006/10 /coward-denierbud.ht ml]here[/url]



14.10.2006

14:03 GMT


Last but not least, there are the following comments from sobe104839:

sobe104839 | October 13, 2006

As for the "peppering" in the HC rebuttals, how does that affect the consistency in their arguments? It's pretty funny to see you make up excuses to avoid defending yourself. And why do you want them to post in YT? 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 deception 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? But I'll bring their arguments here anyway.

sobe104839 | October 13, 2006

Denierbud,

"gas cellar, bomb cellar, bombshelter, gas shelter."

Roberto muehlenkampf, who is a german speaker, clarifies the issue and proves that "vergasungkellar" literally translates into "gassing cellar". End of story. "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 videos? I don't think so, especially as you have no problem with fellow frauds of yours mouthing off about the Holocaust in general. You're only proving to me that you have no argument for the rest of the holocaust.



Here we have an interesting message – moderately critical, perhaps sarcastic:

shawnde82 | October 13, 2006

I want to reiterate that I like your videos. I think that you have a passion for the subject which is great.
I just do not feel that you reasoning is logical enough for me personally. You build your case on some firm but some shaky grounds and so I can only reason that it is speculation at best.

Besides, on a modern political front it aides the west to have Israel in place. Arabs have their focus on only one thing and therefore miss events happening in their own backyards. Just a thought.

On a third and final point It would be nice to see videos on the genocide in Bangladesh in 1971 or Rwanda. I do like your style



Happy about the message of seminumerical , denierbud produced the nonsense quoted hereafter.

denierbud | October 13, 2006

Hi Seminumerical,

That's interesting. I didn't know there was a mistranslation or mis-subtitling.

If the story tellers didn't even think to cover a fire from the snow in winter, then you can see how the idea of the ground being frozen would not occur to them either.

Treblinka: Burying 700,000 bodies in the middle of winter.

Belzec: Digging up 600,000 bodies in the middle of winter.


Some comments about denierbud's above-quoted babbling (more when we get to clip # 15):

1. Who said that 700,000 bodies were buried at Treblinka "in the middle of winter"? About 700,000 bodies were the product of all the killing that went on at that camp between 22 July and the end of December 1942.

2. Who said there were 600,000 bodies at Belzec? The documented record, as I pointed out in section 4.1 of my article Carlo Mattogno on Belzec Archaeological Research, is 434,508 Jews whose arriving and being killed at Belzec can be considered certain.

Who said the bodies at Belzec were dug up in the middle of winter? As I pointed out in section 4.2 of the same article, the general exhumation and burning of the bodies at Belzec started in November 1942. It may have been very cold in that month, but it was hardly the deep winter freeze that denierbud speculates on, and laying bare the graves as well as at least a part of the exhumation could have been done before deep winter set in.



denierbud received an approving message:

seminumerical | October 13, 2006

In episode 15, about half way through, when speaking of the temperature, the woman who is translating into French says that the temperature can go down to -25 / -30 (Celsius of course) in the winter, but the subtitles say -15 / -20. The ground would be iron hard after a few weeks at any one of those temperatures.



12.10.2006

Status at 15:53 hours GMT

One new message from denierbud, which amounts to no more than regurgitating the crap that I already commented on here :

denierbud | October 11, 2006

Hi Sobe,

I do believe that, and thought it important to add one sentence in my movie stating that. But that's one sentence out of a 4 hour movie. The movie is about the 3 camps and that's what I'll talk about. By the way, if the Holocaust Controversies website is so great at debunking my video, you're welcome to go there, find out what they say, and take a try at posting their strongest points under the appropriate videos chapters here. I'll definitely respond to them when posted here.

Two new messages from sobe104839:

sobe104839 | October 11, 2006

Stupid YT! I was about to post a comment demolishing your nonsense and it erased my work!


sobe104839 | October 11, 2006

Denierbud, I mention Max taeubner and Alfred wetzler because in your episode 30, you say "......the whole thing is a lie. I only chose one-third so I can cover it thouroughly." As usual, no proof from denierbud showing that "the rest is a lie". Since you make the bizzare, absurd claim that the whole holocaust is a lie, I guess that enables me to argue with you to see if it is really a lie, since that's what you're claiming. Don't utter nonsense unless you have proof to back it up.



11.10.2006

Status at 22:14 hours GMT:

Sergey’s message of October 5, 2006 has been deleted.

Lokulotes’ message of the same day is also gone.

There are the following messages from "denierbud", commented here:

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.


denierbud | October 11, 2006

Hi Calymath,

Holocaust Controversies is one part academic rebuttal and one part 7th grade potty mouth. And until they take out the potty mouth part I'm not going to pay attention to them or consider their rebuttals. 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. No academic journal in this country writes that way, and I'm on the level of academic journals.

It's not about, as you said, "being a man" regarding the website Holocaust Controversies. It's just that they are rude and pepper their rebuttals with name calling and putdowns. If it wasn't for that, (and that I could be sure they wouldn't change their rebuttals once I refuted them) I'd address all their rebuttals.


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


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. 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." Why not talk about all the material mentioned in my movie? You mention Max Taubner and Erhard Wetzel. I have no idea who those people are. And as you say, they have nothing to do with the three camps in my movie.



Status at 15:41 hours GMT:

The last two posts by sobe104839 recorded in the entry of 10.10.2006 have been deleted.

Instead there are the following new posts, at least one of which is a deletion candidate:

Calymath | October 11, 2006

Be a man and link.

http://holocaustcont roversies.blogspot.c om/


sobe104839 | October 10, 2006

1)A captured document mentions a "vergasungkellar", or gassing cellar. If there were no gas chambers, how do you explain this document?
2) During an "action" against Jews on the Eastern Front during the war, an SS man named Max Täubner was brought up on criminal charges for, as an officer, shooting Jews himself, as well as photographing the "action" and showing the photos to people back in Berlin. He was tried before an SS court in Munich, which rendered its verdict on May 24, 1943. The judge wrote, in part:(SEE COMMENT BELOW PLEASE)



10.10.2006

Looked in at 21:03 GMT and found the following messages:

sobe104839 | October 10, 2006

Yeah, and if denierbud's THAT sensitive, then sorry for calling you a coward. Seriously, I could understand you thinking about blocking me if ALL I did was insults, but I also carry arguments. Just ignore the "coward" part of the comment but if you could answer the questions, I'd be grateful. And how do you expect us to think about you? You omitted the passage in Wiernik's book which talks about benzine bing sprinkled by the corpses. Why did you do that?(SEE MY COMMENTS BELOW)


sobe104839 | October 10, 2006

Hi (I forgot your name,)

I suspect that you'll become a denier pretty soon, just wanted to let you know that although what Israel does is wrong, the others are not angels either. Before I give you links so that you can make up your mind, keep in mind the following:
1) A captured document mentions a "vergasungkellar", or gassing cellar. If there were no gas chambers, how do you explain this document?
2) During an "action" against Jews on the Eastern Front during the war, an SS man named Max Täubner was brought up on criminal charges for, as an officer, shooting Jews himself, as well as photographing the "action" and showing the photos to people back in Berlin. He was tried before an SS court in Munich, which rendered its verdict on May 24, 1943. The judge wrote, in part:(SEE COMMENT BELOW, AND DENIERBUD, you can't be SO sensitive about me calling you coward, right?)


sobe104839 | October 10, 2006

"The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews HAVE TO BE EXTERMINATED and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss.
3)a letter from Erhard Wetzel, a Nazi adviser on Jewish Affairs, to Heinrich Lohse, Reichkommissar for Ostland, stationed at Riga, mentions the "Vergasungsapparate" (gassing apparatus that had been used in the T-4 Euthanasia program in Berlin. So how do you explain that? Ask these questions to denierbud. I shall enjoy watching him lie in trying to explain this. Thank you in advance.
Links: www.deathcamps.org (this website is currently shut down) www.ushmm.com www.nizkor.com http://http://holoca ustcontroversies.blo gspot.com/
THe last 2 are anti-denial blogs, and denierbud is such a coward, that after the HC team demolished his trash, he won't link to them.
THank you and I hope you won't become a conspiraloon.


redgmarino | October 09, 2006

The Holocaust my have been a sham. Not to sure for now, I'll have to do more research on this topic. The Halocaust still gives not excuse for all the horrific acts of Zionist terroist like the indiscrimitate attact on the Lebenese cilivian population, Desptruction of Palastine and other horrific acts like the attempted destruction of the USS LIberty. If anyone has some other good resources or sites on Holocaust I would be glad to check them out thanks.


06.10.2006

At 11:40 GMT, I saw this message from lokulotes, the author of the neat clip we mentioned here. He’s less polite with Ugly Voice Bud than we are. Let’s record his message, before it disappears:

lokulotes | October 05, 2006

Hi buddy,

"I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about "free speech.""

you lousiest liar I've ever met, you scum of the earth, you hateful piece of pigeon-shit:

Don't you ever dare to question my right of free speech or I'm going to pay a visit to the cockroach that gave birth to you and send it over to a Nazi delousing facility.

Further questions, buddy, or are you just gonna prove my point by denieing my precious right to speek freely? As you ridicilous hypocrite did 6 million times before.


At 6:49 hours GMT, I found this addition:

SergeyRomanov | October 05, 2006

"And for the 5th time I deleted sergey's advertisement for his website when he spammed my videos with a message that gave no comment but only a link."

Just a usual lie from debunked "denierbud". I didn't "spam" anything. I posted a link _with_ a comment about that link (I think it was a request to visit the refutation). Given that the link was and is absolutely relevant to the video (that's the ongoing demolition of these clips, after all), it cannot reasonably qualify as spam.

As to why "Denierbud" deleted the link (and refuses to link to us) - check it out yourself, and you'll understand - holocaustcontroversi es.blogspot.com/2006 /04/quick- links.html#debuv


05.10.2006

Just looked in at 19:57 GMT, and guess what: denierbud deleted all my messages of yesterday. Leadfoot Jonnie has been a good teacher.


04.10.2006

10:32 hours GMT. The following posts have been added:

cortagravatas64 | October 04, 2006

>You've probably posted to my profile 30-40 times? if I had to guess.

And so? You can post on my profile as often as you want. You'll always get a reply.

>I let you have your say. That's enough.

If you're afraid of my messages on your profile, just block me, Bud. Until you do I'll keep posting here, and every post you delete will have appeared elsewhere by the time you do.


cortagravatas64 | October 04, 2006

>Don't respond to this. Just post a comment under one of the 30 videos, about the video, if you >have a comment to make. Or post all you like on your own website.

The latter suggestion I will follow. Now, how about linking to our articles on our website's "rebuttals" section, removing that section or at least telling us who that "academic community" you supposedly contact is?


cortagravatas64 | October 04, 2006

>My own experience is giving me an insight into why you were likely deleted at codoh forum.

Yep, that was because my arguments and questions were inconvenient. "Revisionists" don't like their faith being challenged with inconvenient arguments and questions, for they know they have nothing to offer against them. That's why the cowards at CODOH pressed the deleting button, and you are following in their footsteps.


cortagravatas64 | October 04, 2006

>I gave you plenty of posts at my profile to advertise your website, to state your reasons on >where you want to post etc. Why you don't want to post here etc. Now that's done.

Thank you so much, Bud, but why do you want to cut me off now? Are you afraid that more people might be directed to our blog, read the articles there and have a good laugh at you? So it seems. And why would that be, other than because you know you produced trash?


cortagravatas64 | October 04, 2006

>Hi Cortagravatas,

>I just deleted a number of your posts here. I deleted the ones posted after I said the following, >and I'll say it again: Make a rebuttal comment under my videos or don't post here anymore.

So you want rebuttals limited to 500-character mini-posts with time-outs every three posts, Bud? I thought we had been through that. Why do you want to limit the discussion of your trash not only in place but also in space, Bud? Why don't you come out on HC or RODOH, or link to the HC rebuttals on your website?


denierbud | October 03, 2006

Hi Cortagravatas,

I just deleted a number of your posts here. I deleted the ones posted after I said the following, and I'll say it again: Make a rebuttal comment under my videos or don't post here anymore.

I gave you plenty of posts at my profile to advertise your website, to state your reasons on where you want to post etc. Why you don't want to post here etc. Now that's done. My own experience is giving me an insight into why you were likely deleted at codoh forum.

Don't respond to this. Just post a comment under one of the 30 videos, about the video, if you have a comment to make. Or post all you like on your own website.

You've probably posted to my profile 30-40 times? if I had to guess. I let you have your say. That's enough.


0:04 hours GMT: Bud has deleted all my posts of yesterday and the day before.

He added the following post:

denierbud | October 03, 2006

Hi Alia,

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about "free speech."



03.10.2006

cortagravatas64 | October 03, 2006

Alia,

I don't know if you are able to get denierbud kicked off YouTube, but I would strongly oppose this. The fellow has a right to free speech, however disgusting his nonsense may be.

Don't make him bigger than he is by allowing him to portray himself as a victim of censorship. Try to do things our way, which is to take his clips apart one by one:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.c om/2007/09/sticky- chicken- challenge.html


Alia251987 | October 03, 2006

I'll have you excluded from this website, denying the Shoah is a racist distortion of History, you won't prove anything by your so called "precise demonstrations".I won't let you do your little business here.



02.10.2006

cortagravatas64 | October 02, 2006

>Hi Cortagravatas,

>Mr. Rumples probably did see your site and hence his comment "as you can see there are no >serious rebuttals."

I don't think so and couldn't care less, but if you think so what's your problem with following my suggestion?

>I've let you list your website numerous times in my profile comments.

What, am I now supposed to change my profile because of His Excellency Bud? :lol

>Your last post was the last time. Make a rebuttal comment under my videos or don't post here >anymore.

We've been through that option, haven't we?

What exactly are you afraid of, Bud?


denierbud | October 02, 2006

Hi Cortagravatas,

Mr. Rumples probably did see your site and hence his comment "as you can see there are no serious rebuttals."

I've let you list your website numerous times in my profile comments. Your last post was the last time. Make a rebuttal comment under my videos or don't post here anymore.


cortagravatas64 | October 02, 2006

Talk about rebuttals, Bud, when will you include the HC rebuttals under http://holocaustcont roversies.blogspot.c om/2006/04/quick- links.html#debuv
in your rebuttals section under http://www.onethirdo ftheholocaust.com/re buttals.html ?

If you think these rebuttals are insufficient, you should have no problem with that. Saying that you will accept rebuttals only from such-and-such "academic community" (which community is that, by the way?) is horseshit, not only because you belong to no academic community yourself but also and mainly because what matters is the consistency and quality of the rebuttals and not where they come from. Either you accept our rebuttals without hiding behind unwarranted guidelines, or you remove that rebuttal section altogether and put an end to this transparent and ridiculous publicity act.

How about it, Bud?


01.10.2006

misterrumples | October 01, 2006

Great work, and as you can see their are no serious rebuttal's...


10 comments:

TrueVoice said...

Denierbud says:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about "free speech."

Oh, you mean, this: (my response to denierbud in brackets)
I gave you plenty of posts at my profile to advertise your website, to state your reasons on where you want to post etc. Why you don't want to post here etc. Now that's done. My own experience is giving me an insight into why you were likely deleted at codoh forum.
(Yup, truth is hard for deniers to swallow)

You've probably posted to my profile 30-40 times? if I had to guess. I let you have your say. That's enough.
(Wow, what a flexible definition of "free speech" you have there. Since the bulk of the back and forth is about CODOH vs. RODOH and linking, I can see how this is "advertising". My guess is you are afraid to link back to the "challenges" to your videos, since you know they show how poor your position is. But, it's all about your Free Speech, isn't it?)

Calymath said...

What fun.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/Momanguise/massdebate.jpg

deconneurnot said...

I made one post about the issue of the gassing rooms and now find that I can make no more postings to Denierbud's blog. Is it something I said?

deconneurnot said...

I stand corrected...suddenly I am up an running again on your tube...

deconneurnot said...

Oh well...looks likeour friend has finally blocked me. I was only replying to some of the mail that appeared on his website.He made no attempt to block them.

104839sobe104839 said...

Yep, I got blocked too, because I made "agitation comments".

I merely told denierbud that if I made reubttals without insults , would he link to them and reply or "runnaway to the fuhrerbunker at codoh"?

And that's why I got blocked. To quote a dumb nazi on rodoh, "Ya just gotta laugh".

It's funny to see denierbud cry and scream for the jailed "revisionists" in Germany, and the next moment, watch him delete comments and block everyboy who provides opposition.

After denierbud blocked me, I made a new profile and alerted him that it was sobe. I dropped comments with that profile on his videos.

Guess what happens when I go to his videos the next day? My comments are gone and my new profile is blocked. Why did denierbud delete my comments? I will list one of the comments which was unjustly deleted:

"Denierbud, try to be more specific. The AR camps were transit camps. Ok, then you should be able to answer these questions easily:
Why do we have not ONE single eyewitness testimony regarding this huge resettlment? What were the transport routes? Were were these Jews housed? From what food supply were they fed?
Nieman wurde weitertransportiert!"

As you can see, no insults, no agitation, yet that comment was still deleted.

Denierbud sent me a mail saying that

"You're a good guy, sobe. Maybe i'll un-block you in 6 months (!), we'll see. I'm trying to get away from this youtube discussion thing. [...]
Thanks,
-Denierbud"

Wow, amazing, denierbud blocked my non-agitation, non-insultant comments because he's "trying to get away from this youtube discussion thing"! Ok denierbud, thanks for clarifying.

The fact that denierbud has blocked almost anyone who has provided opposition speaks volumes of him.

Calymath said...

It appears he has indeed ended all comments.

I think you can claim victory.

Anonymous said...

HC crew,
You seem to have missed some gentle drama over the weekend.
I wonder if I may have been the straw that broke the camels back, if so, I didn't mean to.
-it's important to downplay my own possible impact on Bud's choices, as there are many others "giving him the business"
When I have more time, I'll try to paraphrase a couple of posts, two of which were deleted within minutes. It may never be known why Bud shut it down, but he started the process shortly afterward.
HB

Anonymous said...

HC,
I think I placed 4 comments in vid 4, two of them are still there, the other two were deleted.
Buds comment showed up as I was posting. I decided not to have an"IRC" moment w/ him.

-these were the first comments I had placed to his videos, rather than to his channel


-------------------------
(from vid #4)
HB
i actually looked at some maps of treblinka, and was suprised to see a separate generator bldg. -it seems half the size of the chambers engine room
- it would seem that the point is to kill people, CO levels are secondary
-if whatever engine had it's intake hooked to the "shower heads" and the exhaust vented near the floor, the oxygen levels would rapidly fall in even a poorly sealed room
(combustion products = heavier)


Denierbud-
No one says they did it like that.


HB
my ADD won't allow me to review 300+ posts about CO
- after watching this again, i feel like a total dope as i am pretty familiar w/ gasification (producer gas)
-at this point i won't explain why that is no good as i am personally embarrassed
----------------------------
These two paraphrased comments were rapidly deleted

If I recall, one of the comments wondered how much air a 5 liter whatever type engine would process - I proposed a conservative possibility of 4000 liters a minute(800rpm idle/ 4cycle vs. diesel changes things /I may be fuzzy on how volume is calc. for engines)
-The same post also suggested that this would effectively "pump" the air out of the chamber, and give credit to witness testimony that I think I remember Bud disregarding in a different vid (?) as meaning a vacuum would result, and that it would implode the bldg.

The second comment was me sharing an observation about his list of German Nobel Prize winners, the first on the list was Fritz Haber, I thought I remembered a war related suicide of another recipient, and that many of them may have passed thru Max Planck, who's son was executed. I also pointed to the chronological gaps directly after both world wars, and sarcastically congratulated Germany on a job well done.

-comments started closing on vids shortly afterward

---------------------------

Over the weekend I posted to his channel, something like-

Denierbud,
Sorry to find you've decided to close comments.
Although I had hoped you might consider some updates regarding new info, you need to do what's right for you.
I may never be able to get my arms around the millions of people who perished in such a short time either. Wherever they are now I hope they can find some peace in our failure to do so.
( "arms" was strange for me as i was thinking more of conceptually grasping the volume, rather than hugging dead people, but I let it stand)

- channel comments were gone a couple of days later

Mike Okisbig said...

Wait.. is this the fucking Rainbow Coalition. Am I the only white guy here?

Advice: Hop off denierbuds dick and admit that most of you at best live in your parents basement and beat off to child porn. You people are traitors and should be tried for treason. Because of you Beyonce and Lil' John are icons.

By the way.... did your little cousin sew me this nice Nike shirt I had at his little factory. Awww.... how cute