Answer: When you are as deluded and dishonest as Denierbud.
Denierbud turned up on this JREF thread on the same day that the Negationist Team formally withdrew its acceptance of our challenge to debate the Aktion Reinhardt camps. The dishonesty of his opening post was immediately apparent to that forum's readers. Denierbud wrote:
I am a holocaust denier, but open to your view.The dishonesty here is clear: someone who is genuinely "open to your view" does not formulate rules that close off any questions that force him to explain his position and place his claims in context.
There are numerous holocaust denial videos found at:
I'm most interested in what people think about the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found there but feel free to discuss the other holocaust denial videos also.
I am asking if anyone here can watch some episodes of one of the videos and state specifically that they don't agree with in a specific episode. I request the following guidelines:
1) Discuss a specific episode of a specific video. The videos are all broken up into episodes. Don't change subject to another holocaust topic, which the videos don't cover. For instance the comment "what about the millions who saw it happen?" would be breaking this guideline, since the videos don't cover that and it thus changes the topic.
2) Don't focus on how it is or hateful to be a denier. Rather, state specifically what you don't agree with (or agree with) in a specific episode of a specific video at holocaust denial videos dot com.
Sorry to put "specific" in bold but you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get people to do this. We'll see if anyone can do it here.
It also became apparent that JREF posters were familiar with our past rebuttals of Denierbud's videos and were able to link to our rebuttals without any prompting from ourselves. When a succession of JREF posters insisted that he respond to those rebuttals, Denierbud fell back on the bizarre claim that Pressac's estimate of Zyklon-B usage at Auschwitz was 'very close' to his own:
The point in the video is that even an acknowledged holocaust scholar says that 95 percent of the cans of Zyklon B were used for delousing. It's possible to use that and not agree with it. To paraphrase: "Even so and so says something that is very close to my view."--it's like that.This last sentence is simply untrue. Whilst Pressac's claim has been disputed by other authorities (most notably Van Pelt), Pressac's position is diametrically opposed to Denierbud's, for the obvious reason that Pressac goes on to argue that the remaining 5% was still used to gas hundreds of thousands of Jews. Denierbud's entire dogma requires zero Jewish deaths by this method.
The difference between 5% and 0% is therefore huge in this context, just as it would be if I owned 5% of the USA's national wealth and my neighbour owned 0%.
Does Denierbud not grasp basic mathematics, and indeed basic logic, or is he simply a liar? Either way, his shambolic performance at JREF is further proof that denial, having failed in all other public fora, is now a laughing stock in the Internet community.
EDIT 1: Denierbud now admits:
I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that?Well nobody did assume it, they knew all along that he was just trying to sell his wares.
EDIT 2: A superb riposte from ElMondoHummus. This should be posted on denial's gravestone as its most succinct and accurate epitaph:
It's not about any one witness being right or wrong, or the subject of a given episode of a video peddling fraudulent alt-history. The whole point is that you can't overturn history by merely picking apart isolated elements. Not when you don't consider the context that has been built over the years from the massive accumulation of evidence. That context provides shape and boundaries to the narrative, and those boundaries cannot be exceeded simply because an isolated issue is in dispute. That's the point Nick Terry was making: You separate out whole reams of accumulated knowledge in your minute focus on individual points. And without allowing those reams of accumulated knowledge to shape your understanding, conclusions drawn from that minute focus fade into irrelevancy. Yes, it's legitimate to begin criticism by discussing isolated issues, but that goes nowhere fast when they stay isolated.
That's the central failure you and other holocaust deniers make. It's the same failure 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy peddlers for other myths make: You all hone in on isolated points as if they overturn the entire narrative, yet you all to a man (or woman) fail to demonstrate how even a legitimate and accurate refutation of any given isolated point shapes context. You all merely state that an isolated refutation equals an overall refutation, and willingly leap to the conclusion that the entire narrative must be junked. That's sloppy reasoning.
Everyone here can see the emphasis on isolated points. But we see absolutely no explanation relating how those points impact the overall narrative, not anything built on more than mere "See, this is wrong, that means it's all wrong" implication.
Even what little you provide goes nowhere and does nothing. Given that, why are we supposed to watch those videos? If all they are are yet continued retailing of isolated facts and contextless points, then there's zero reason to view them. And if you cannot even establish in posts here that there is some legitimate analysis of the impact your claims have on the established narrative, then you fail to sell any of us on the notion that the video is worth watching.
Sell better. You're doing badly.