The coward “denierbud”, …

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

These are his recent ramblings, followed by my comments:

Read more!


denierbud | October 11, 2006

Hi Sobe,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then do something about your ignorance, Buddy.

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

And so? See above.

denierbud | October 11, 2006

Hi Sobe,

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

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

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

Bomb shelter
Bomb cellar
Gas shelter
Gas cellar

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

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

denierbud | October 11, 2006

Hi Calymath,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd address all their rebuttals.

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

denierbud | October 11, 2006

Hi Calymath,

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

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