Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot & more

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot & more

Postby Hannover » 3 years 10 months ago (Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:08 am)

This will be a field day for the informed Revisionists at this forum. Karlsson, if you're reading this, I challenge you to debate here.

http://debunkingdenialism.com

I ran across this character when simply surfing the net. He apparently thinks he has all the answers to anyone who questions just about any orthodox mainstream position on just about everything. I find him woefully misinformed and belligerent towards free speech, as these Marxist - Statist types usually are.

I will ignore his typical Marxist views on other topics and go with his assertions about the so called 'holocaust' and showcase his views on the lack of reliability of "eyewitnesses" ... which contradict the very 'holocaust' storyline he claims to believe in. I mean really, it's men like Emil Karlsson that Revisionists easily demolish when there is a level playing field.

Here is Karlsson's position on the absurd 'holocaust' storyline as said through his alleged encounter with a 'holocaust denier', which I really doubt given the superficiality of the alleged 'denier's' claims:
http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/12/0 ... #more-1607
As anyone here knows, Karlsson's false strawman arguments have been shredded at this forum. Note his references, each one has been utterly refuted. I assume Karlsson doesn't get out much. I invite further comment on each of his points.
excerpt:
1. Gas chambers where not just delousing chambers

One of his major claims, and one of the most common claim put forward by Holocaust deniers is that the gas chambers at the extermination camps where not actually used to kill people in, but just used for delousing infested clothes. There are many problems with this. First, the gas chambers in Treblinka used carbon monoxide, which is lethal because it reversibly binds to hemoglobin in mammals and prevents it from transporting oxygen around the body. However, lice do not have hemoglobin so using carbon monoxide to delouse clothing would be a very ineffective method. Second, some gas chambers in Auschwitz used Zyklon-B and had special chambers inside these that where specifically used for delousing. If the gas chambers where really just “delousing chambers”, why put a specific box for delousing clothing within this supposed “delousing chamber”? Clearly, the evidence supports the mainstream historical account, rather than Holocaust denialism.

2. Zyklon-B is a carrier for hydrogen cyanide gas and lethal to humans

He them tried to stump me with the following question: how could Zyklon-B be used to kill humans, since it is a insecticide and in solid form. This is an easy challenge to rise up to: Zyklon-B is a carrier for hydrogen cyanide gas that often came in the form of adsorbent granules that released the gas when treated. Furthermore, the product came in two forms: one odorless and one with the warning odorant methyl 2-bromoacetate. If the gas chambers where just “delousing chambers”, it would not matter what form was used. Why would the Nazis have cared what they lice smelled? However, if the goal was to gas humans, it would make sense to use the odorless form, which was precisely the form that was used by the Nazis. So yet again, the Holocaust deniers challenge was refuted and the evidence was shown to fit better with the mainstream historical account.

3. There are always gaps, anomalies and things left unexplained

A third claim made by the Holocaust denier was that there were “problems” and “anomalies” with the mainstream historical account. He did not specify when asked, so I just replied that this is the very nature of scientific and historical research. There are always things left unexplained and no explanation is immune to chance or human limitations. He had no good response to this counterargument.

4. There does not exist two different theories

This is the classic false balance fallacy, claiming that a scientific (or in this case, historical) explanation that is well-supported by mountains of evidence is in some strange sense “equal” to absurd pseudoscience (or pseudohistory). Just because two different models are asserted with similar levels of conviction does not mean that the truth lie somewhere in between. Sometimes, one side is just mistaken. Also, by using this rhetorical trick, he abused the theory concept. In science and history, a theory is a well-supported explanation to some part of the natural world that includes facts, inferences and tested hypothesis, not a synonym for “crazy idea”. This is a favorite argument by creationists too, asserting that modern evolutionary biology is “just a theory” not understanding that this is the best possible level of confidence that can be acquired when doing science.

5. Keep an open mind, but keep an efficient filter.

Sure, I replied. But there is a difference between an open mind and a whole in your head from which your brain leaks out. He seemed to agree, but we did not linger on this issue too long.

6. The fact that denying the Holocaust is illegal in some areas says nothing about its validity as an historical explanation.

He often played the martyr card by saying that he did not think it was reasonable for it to be illegal to deny the Holocaust and that he did not support throwing such individuals in jail. This, however, is at best an irrelevant meta-discussion and the best way to counter this is to say that people should not be thrown in jail because of their expression of their convictions per se, but emphasize that this is irrelevant for the historical evidence.

These where the major claims he put forward so let us now move on to my critical questions. The discussion was about to end so I did not have that much time.

7. Data from demographics are evidence for the Holocaust

I asked him why, if the Holocaust either did not occur, or if the death toll was just “a few tens of thousands”, how come the demographics for, say, the Jewish population before and after the War showed a decrease of about 6 million. He replied that perhaps they moved, but could not say where or provide evidence from demographics to show this. It is curious to note that this is contradictory to his earlier statement that he accepted the existence of concentration camps and that the Nazis shipped many Jews there.

8. Why was carbon monoxide used?

This relates strongly to the first section. If there were no gas chambers, why did the Nazis produce large amounts of carbon monoxide? He was unable to reply to this successfully, merely suggesting that perhaps the notion that they used carbon monoxide was just a lie that was part of the conspiracy. So in other words, he thought that the lack of evidence for a conspiracy theory is just evidence for the conspiracy theory, showing that it was, for all intents and purposes, unfalsifiable.

9. What would have to be demonstrated for you to change your mind?

He could not specify what evidence would convince him that the mainstream historical account is the most reasonable position, mainly because he had confessed that he did not know that much about what the historical case for the reality of the Holocaust was. This is a clear admission that he was not very open to being wrong. He asked me the same question back, but I replied that historical documents and physical evidence converging on the same general conclusion would convince me. Before we parted ways, I asked him to figure out what would have to be the case for him to change his minds and he agreed.

10. Lessons learned?

What lessons did I learn from this experience? Mainly the following three:

Do not act condescending or nasty towards the person, because then this will just strengthen his or her belief that he or she is a martyr for his or her beliefs as a defense mechanism. Be polite.
Even the most kind and otherwise rational person can be severely mistaken in other areas, even to the point of being a pseudoskeptic, without noticing it.
It is quote difficult to argue from the top of one’s head. If you aim to become a professional scientific skeptic or pseudoscience debunker, be prepared for anything. Even try to carry around papers and images in your backpack or bag just in case or practice short one-liners against most common arguments.

11. References and Further Reading

Evans, Richard J. (2001) Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial. New York: Basic Books,

Gottfried, Ted. (2001). Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books.

Jan Van Pelt, Robert. (2002) The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial. New York: Indiana University Press.

Lipstadt, Deborah. (1993). Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press.

Shermer, Michael and Alex Grobman. (2008). Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? Berkeley: University of California Press.

Van Husen, William H. (1999). “Zyklon B” in World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge.

Zimmerman, John C. (2000). Holocaust Denial: Demographics, Testimonies, and Ideologies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

The edifice of the 'holocaust' house of cards rests on the impossible, contradictory, and bizarre statements made by so called "eyewitnesses.
Karlsson discusses the well known lack of reliability of "eyewitnesses such that he apparently has no clue just how badly he refutes his own position on the so called 'holocaust. In one of his few moments of clarity Karlsson shoots himself in the foot. Apply Karlsson's points about "eyewitneses" in general to those "eyewitnesses" of the 'holocaust' storyline and we end up with Karlsson being a Revisionist whether he acknowledges it or not, Comical actually, see:
http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/2 ... courtroom/
excerpt:
Common misconceptions about memory

There is a lot of common misunderstandings about memory. It is not like a video camera, perfectly recording and storing memory for later retrieval. It can change over time, adding and subtracting details, filling in blanks and become distorted. A popular misconception is that the accuracy of a memory is proportional to the confidence assigned to it by the eyewitness. In reality, the correlation between confidence and accuracy is weak. Hypnosis is not considered to be effective for accurate recall, despite the fact that over half of the general public sampled believe it to be (among the memory expert sample, 0% agreed or strongly agreed).

One striking finding is that people who work within law enforcement and the criminal justice system display only a little less ignorance about memory as do college students, who in turn are not that much better than the general public. This has profound implications for the court system.

How memory can get distorted

There are many different ways that human memory can become distorted. In principle, distortions can occur during perception, encoding, storage and retrieval. Here are some of the main causes of distortion mentioned by the paper.

Post-identification feedback: memory confidence tends to increase if exposed to positive feedback by law enforcement personnel after the identification or decrease if exposed to negative feedback. Because they are often perceived as authorities, their feedback is taken into account by eyewitnesses in making an estimate of accuracy. This kind of effect can occur even if the post-identification feedback is non-verbal e. g. facial expression and body language if the person conducting the line-up is not blinded to who the police suspects for the crime. Even repeated questioning can increase the confidence in the accuracy of a memory.

Misinformation effect: distortions of memory can occur after being exposed to misleading information about that memory. Just subtle variations in the wording of a question (e. g. “smashed” versus “hit” related to a car crash) can cause memory distortions, not just about the speed at impact, but also about peripheral details of the scene, such as presence of broken glass.

Passage of time: memories can be distorted by merely the passing of time. The classic study demonstrating this asked people were when they first heard about the events of 9/11. Years later, when asked again, around 40% of people had different memories of the situation. In line with previous research showing a weak correlation between confidence and accuracy, the confidence of the study participants was still high.

Filling in the gap: people have a tendency to fill in the gaps i. e. remembering details that did not actually occur, but fits the general expectations of a certain crime situations.

Leading questions: something similar occurs when lawyers ask leading questions. The information provided by the lawyer can bleed over into becoming a memory of what was said by the eyewitness testimony. This effect still occurs even when jurors are told to focus on what the eyewitness is saying and not the lawyer.

The neuroscience of memory distortion

Memories can be strengthened by a process called long-term potentiation, where the signaling between two neurons is strengthened because they fire together. When certain neurons are wired together do not fire in a coordinated fashion, this can led to a weakened synaptic connection (called long-term depression), and thus presumably a weakened memory. When a person attempts to retrieve a memory, the associated synapses become labile. If the memory is not updated through reconsolidation it may be forgotten. During this process, memory distortions could occur. It is also clear that new and old memories of a situation can interfere with each other. If these are similar in some respects, the attempt to retrieve the old memory can make details of the new memory bleed over. The paper goes into addition details about the neuroscience background.

The consequences of ignorance about memory

The paper discusses several legal consequences of the fact that law enforcement personnel, judges and jurors tend to not be aware about the science of memory. Two startling examples relates to common decisions not to prosecute sexual assaults and how DNA evidence has exonerated hundreds of people who were convicted based on eyewitness testimony.

Prosecution of sexual assaults: according to the review article, around 86% of sexual assaults reported to the police are not prosecuted because the law enforcement personnel consider the testimony given by the putative victim to be unreliable. For sure, some proportion of those testimonies may actually be of low accuracy, but many testimonies might be seen as unreliable because the victims does not display a high degree of confidence. As we have seen, such an inference is not warranted because the correlation between confidence and accuracy is weak.

The Innocence Project: there are over 300 well-documented cases were DNA evidence has exonerated individuals who were wrongfully convicted of a crime, often (~75%) based on eyewitness testimony. The average time that these individuals spent incarcerated was a little over 13 years. On the outside, the financial compensation is typically low and their lives are in ruins. Friends and family have disowned them and they have a hard time finding work.

So what can be done to mitigate and reduce these problems in a legal context?

Possible solutions

The review paper recommends a number of suggestions for reducing the problems associated with misconceptions and distortions related to memory. These suggestions apply to a number of areas, such as the interviewing of eyewitnesses, suspect identification and jurors.

Eyewitnesses interviews: because of potential for distortions caused by e. g. post-identification feedback, any confidence statements should be recorded right away. The interviewer should use the enhanced cognitive interview technique: giving over the control of the conversation to the witness (to avoid unintentional manipulation by individuals with perceived authority), reminiscing back to the context of situation (sight, smells, sounds feelings, thoughts etc.), a free recall segment to remember as much as possible (even if it is not in chronological order) and a segment with open questions.

The paper even makes the suggestion that several eyewitness accounts that show some degree of consistency should not automatically be believed to have more accuracy, as they may not be independent and all individuals are susceptible to the same kinds of memory biases and errors. Although the paper does not discuss this, a key case study of this is the murder of former Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Anna Lindh. She was stabbed in a major department store in Stockholm in late 2003. The police managed to identify and isolate witnesses. Unfortunately, they were all isolated in the same room and started talking to each other. Furthermore, the police held some initial eyewitnesses interviews in that room in the presence of all witnesses, some of whom interjected and “corrected” the testimony of other individuals. These processes ended up distorting and contaminating the memory of the witnesses, leading the police to release a lot of incorrect details about the suspect. They even initially arrested the wrong person. Around a week later, DNA analysis of items left behind by the murderer cleared this person and another individual, Mijailo Mijailović, was arrested. Mijailović was later sentenced to life imprisonment. Without DNA evidence, this could have been a miscarriage of justice. For more details about the social influence on eyewitnesses in the Lindh case, see Granhag, Memon and Hjelmsäter (2010).

Suspect identification: the non-suspects selected to take part in a line-up should resemble the suspect. The law enforcement personnel should remind the witness that the suspect might not be in the line-up and the individuals that are part of the line-up should be presented sequentially instead of simultaneously. Both of these guidelines has been shown to strongly reduce false positives (and slightly reduce true positives). The line-up should also be double-blind i.e. done by a law enforcement personnel who does not know who the suspect is. If short on staff, this can be done by a computer displaying images of the individuals taking part in the line-up.

Jurors: they should be allowed to take notes during court proceedings as the information presented is vast and it might be difficult to find relevant information in long court transcripts. Taking notes also seems to improve memory. They should also be informed about the fact that memory is not immune to changes, the potential for leading and misleading questions to distort memory, that confidence is not an accurate guide to accuracy and that people tend to fill in the gaps in their memory by inventing things that may or may not have happened.

Conclusion:

The paper offers three main conclusions. First, there are a lot of misconceptions about memory even by law enforcement personnel, judges and even jurors and this has adverse effects in the courtroom. More education and awareness about the science of memory is needed, both for the general public and for people who work in association to the legal system. Second, the legal system should reexamine the evidential value of eyewitness testimony and they even point to suggestions that individuals should not be convicted based on eyewitness testimony alone. Finally, more research should be done so that we can know more about its limitations, how we can detect errors and improve it.

References:

Granhag, Pär Anders, Memon, Amina, & Hjelmsäter, Emma Roos af. (2010). Social influence on eyewitness memory. In P. A. Granhag (Ed.), Forensic Psychology in Context: Nordic and international approaches (pp. 139-140). Portland, Oregon: Willian Publishing.

Lacy J. W., & Stark C. E. (2013). The neuroscience of memory: implications for the courtroom. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 14 (9), 649-58 PMID: 23942467
The tide is turning.

- Hannover


If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1973
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot

Postby borjastick » 3 years 10 months ago (Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:23 pm)

Where would you like us all to start with this ridiculous effort from him? The bottom line is he chose an ill informed adversary and maximised his advantage. I would assume that if he thinks he is so right he would welcome a chance to come here and try his theories, no, thought not.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

avatar
cold beer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot

Postby cold beer » 3 years 10 months ago (Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:07 pm)

I've noticed that a 'psychological trauma defense' has become popular with apologists of those holocaust survivors who have been exposed as blatant liars, claiming that the psychological trauma of the holocaust has distorted their memories.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot

Postby Hannover » 3 years 10 months ago (Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:36 pm)

Karlsson said:
1. Gas chambers where not just delousing chambers

One of his major claims, and one of the most common claim put forward by Holocaust deniers is that the gas chambers at the extermination camps where not actually used to kill people in, but just used for delousing infested clothes. There are many problems with this. First, the gas chambers in Treblinka used carbon monoxide, which is lethal because it reversibly binds to hemoglobin in mammals and prevents it from transporting oxygen around the body. However, lice do not have hemoglobin so using carbon monoxide to delouse clothing would be a very ineffective method. Second, some gas chambers in Auschwitz used Zyklon-B and had special chambers inside these that where specifically used for delousing. If the gas chambers where really just “delousing chambers”, why put a specific box for delousing clothing within this supposed “delousing chamber”? Clearly, the evidence supports the mainstream historical account, rather than Holocaust denialism.
He's changing the story. Diesel engines (impossible for murder as diesel exhaust consists of a large percentage of oxygen) were overwhelmingly claimed as the method of gassing at Treblinka. He needs to research the impossible story he tries to defend. see:
Hannover @ Diesel engines were claimed to be used!

No one claims that carbon monoxide was used as a pesticide. That's a typical strawman from the ignorant.

The alleged Auschwitz / Birkenau gas chambers are claimed to have been morgues converted to homicidal 'gas chambers'. There is no claim of a "special box". His story does not even conform to the standard storyline. There is a Revisionist rebuttal to the 'vergassungskellar' canard (that term shows up on a plan of the morgues) which says that there may have been discussion about a delousing room within one of the morgues, which makes perfect sense in lieu of the raging typhus epidemics at Auschwitz / Birkenau. Note the space labelled as a 'vergassungskellar' on the plan was never built. This theoretical 'vergassungskeller' would not have been a 'box within a gas chamber', but a room within a morgue.

This from one of my previous posts:
The two main 'gas chambers at Auschwitz / Birkenau were exactly the same, supposedly in Kremas II & III. So let's play along with the storyline. Up to 2000 Jews were supposedly gassed until dead, then they were supposedly taken via an elevator to the crematorium directly above.

Fact: as seen in the plans, this elevator is hand drawn, and is only 4 ft X 9 ft. How in the world could 2000 Jews have been loaded onto a 4 ft x 9 ft. hand drawn elevator in just a few minutes? Remember, the storyline says that the gassings and resultant cremations were non-stop for much of the period in question.

We supposedly have another batch of 2000 Jews waiting outside, supposedly being tricked into thinking they were about to receive showers. It would have been impossible to disentangle all the supposedly dead Jews and load 2000 of them onto to this postage stamp of an elevator, hoist them by hand up to the crematory 'ovens' in just minutes.
And this repeated process meant that the crematory ovens above would not have been capable of cremating them in the time alleged, which meant a build-up, a backlog occurred.
The storyline even states that the backlog of the to-be-cremated-gassed-Jews required stacking them outside. Once again, the alleged 2000 Jews were outside in full view of this laughable backlog claim, but supposedly they still thought they were getting 'showers'. Of course, timely aerial reconnaissance photos show nothing of the kind.

Furthermore, while the Jews were waiting outside, the storyline says that a SS man with a gas mask climbed upon the roof of the Kremas (only maybe 18 inches, or close to it, above the ground, Kremas II & III were largely underground) and dropped Zyklon-B granules into a container and lowered it down into the 'holes' in the roof, into the morgues which were supposedly converted into a gas chamber. The waiting 2000 Jews would have a clear view of the man on the roof's activity, yet these 2000 Jews were supposedly not concerned and still thought they were going to get innocent showers. The storyline is utterly ridiculous.

We're not done.

The Zyklon-B pesticide granules took/take hours to complete the outgassing of their cyanide load. The storyline says that this same SS man on the roof, supposedly wearing a highly visible gas mask, withdrew the container up from the 'gas chambers' in just minutes. Remember, the Zyklon-B pesticide granules were allegedly dumped and lowered into the 'gas chambers'. And since we know that the Zyklon-B pesticide would have taken hours to finish releasing it's cyanide load we have a situation where anyone in the entire area would have been vulnerable to gassing.
Yes, the storyline also says that there were vents which were used to remove the gas, but then we are still in a situation where the entire area is vulnerable to cyanide. Not to mention that this certainly would have been noticed by the alleged waiting 2000 Jews. And where does this SS man in a gas mask put the outgassing Zyklon-B pesticide granules which he has supposedly withdrawn, which would be releasing cyanide for hours?

The entire, bizarre story is unsustainable with even the slightest scrutiny. It's no wonder why Jewish supremacists trot out senile, lying 'survivors' (who wouldn't have even survived if the tall tales were true) for emotional impact. No wonder that there are Thought Crime laws against examining this absurd process. 'House of cards' is an understatement.

- Hannover
What say you now, Emil Karlsson?

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot

Postby Hannover » 3 years 10 months ago (Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:23 pm)

Karlsson continues:
2. Zyklon-B is a carrier for hydrogen cyanide gas and lethal to humans

He them tried to stump me with the following question: how could Zyklon-B be used to kill humans, since it is a insecticide and in solid form. This is an easy challenge to rise up to: Zyklon-B is a carrier for hydrogen cyanide gas that often came in the form of adsorbent granules that released the gas when treated. Furthermore, the product came in two forms: one odorless and one with the warning odorant methyl 2-bromoacetate. If the gas chambers where just “delousing chambers”, it would not matter what form was used. Why would the Nazis have cared what they lice smelled? However, if the goal was to gas humans, it would make sense to use the odorless form, which was precisely the form that was used by the Nazis. So yet again, the Holocaust deniers challenge was refuted and the evidence was shown to fit better with the mainstream historical account.
I know of no Revisionist who says Zyklon-B couldn't theoretically kill humans, after all, it does emit cyanide from it's carrying material. Of course, the method in which the storyline claims the Germans used it and the facilities in which it's use is claimed are utterly impossible, laughable even. See my post in the previous post of this thread.

And then, why would the Germans use a bug insecticide when they in fact possessed large quantities of more efficient, agents such as sarin? It makes no sense because the storyline is absurd any way in which you look at it.

Yes, Revisionists know that there was a publicly available scented version of the common pesticide, Zyklon-B. This provided a secondary warning notice to the public after the various posted warning signs used in crowded urban environments. This scented version is claimed to have been used in the absurd 'extermination' process, but later the scent was not included by the manufacturer due to war time scarcity. There are those in desperation who claim that the scent removal was intentional and was indicative of homicidal use, see:

Holo. Hist. Proj.'s Andrew Mathis on Zyklon scent removal
excerpt:
By 1944 Zyklon was being supplied to Auschwitz without the warning ingredient, but the reason for this exceptional practice was a supply shortage rather than any desire, as alleged by Exterminationists, to deceive potential murder victims. One cause of considerable concern to some of the German technicians at the time was that since the warning ingredient also contributed to the chemical stability of the Zyklon-B, its removal could present a serious hazard to the end-user. One result of the removal of the warning ingredient seems to have been the shortening of the shelf-life of even properly sealed cans of Zyklon-B.

The removal of the warning scent was decided upon by the DEGESCH manufacturers and not by the SS. This came out during testimony given by Mr. Breitweiser during the course of the Auschwitz Frankfurt trial in 1961. Breitweiser was in charge of disinfestation at Auschwitz. He was never charged with or convicted of a crime.

Emil Karlsson, your folly is being exposed.

further reading:
Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz
and:
A. Mathis attempts to salvage Zyklon scent removal canard

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot & more

Postby EtienneSC » 3 years 10 months ago (Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:12 am)

It is also noteworthy that Karlsson's "further reading" is all from his own side. It is misleading and superficial for him not to refer to any of the actual and original sources of the ideas he claims to be criticizing - e.g. Butz, Faurisson, etc.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1973
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot & more

Postby borjastick » 3 years 10 months ago (Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:55 am)

I think I have got to the point of no return on Treblinka, Sobibor and Chelmno in terms of what was supposed to have happened there in what time frame and by what method. Auschwitz one can debate because it exists and there is enough fabric and structure left to do research etc. Much of it has been done as we know and the stories of mass gassing and the like are dodgy at best.

When it comes to the aforementioned Treblinka etc my eyes glaze over and I find it difficult to take seriously. When Karlsson talks about the gas chamber within a gas chamber at Treblinka it is laughable. Nothing whatsoever remains of these camps, the so called eyewitnesses are one step from a loony bin and zero evidence has been produced that proves anything significant happened there at all. It's like people claiming that 30,000 innocent souls were killed in the Twin Towers attacks in 9/11. There is no evidence to support the claims of these witnesses. They should take a deep breath, step back, suspend their beliefs for a second and ask themselves if they would believe this story if it was attached to a modern non jewish piece of history.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

avatar
Kageki
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:39 pm

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot & more

Postby Kageki » 3 years 10 months ago (Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am)

I think this guy just deleted someone's comment on his blog. My comment is in moderation and judging from the likes of it will probably get deleted as well. Mind you it's nothing inflammatory or contained any profanity. Just debating simple facts really since his points are also rather simple and pretty stupid.

If he continues to delete comments then it's just going to make me more determined. This was my first comment to the post:

You admit yourself you talked to someone that wasn’t well-informed and your first 2 silly points illustrate that very well. Not even mainstream historians would look to this at any interest.

Revisionists certainly know there were different gas chambers. It’s alleged there were even suffocation chambers, but I digress. Continuing on with the above, Leuchter rocked the boat when he performed a forensic test of the gas chambers at Auschwitz and found neglible traces of cyanide gas. It was highly controversial and later they claim they found traces with another test, but it doesn’t have the very obvious, visible large blue stains that still exist on the delousing chambers.

Revisionists say the warning gas was later removed due to wartime scarcity.

If you even bothered to look you will see these details have been argued in detail by much better informed revisionists like Butz, Faurisson or Mattagno.

This is one of the worst, amateurish debunking of denial I have ever read. Why don’t you try your luck at codoh or jref where active discussions still take place instead of picking on some random amateur?


* The other person commented that the gas chambers were a morgue and no traces of cyanide gas was found so I was adding to that.

avatar
Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot & more

Postby Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » 3 years 10 months ago (Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:52 am)

Some times ago I spotted an interesting materials about the Nazis steam chambers in Treblinka but I'm unable to find anything else.
I know that it was one of the devil's way to exterminate the people.
Can you help with more info and links?
Jerzy

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/09/1 ... mment-5657

avatar
Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot & more

Postby Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » 3 years 10 months ago (Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:38 am)

Emil Karlsson September 16, 2013 at 18:13

"A note to the Holocaust deniers who have attempted to post comments on this article: I have absolutely zero interest in letting my blog be a platform for Holocaust denial. Therefore, I am going to decline publication of such comments. You are welcome to start your own blog or post comments about this article on other blogs or forums that does not take issue with your kind of content. This, however, is not a blog for you.

I can easily see through the tactic of trying to bait me into letting you have a space on this blog. It will not work. I also know what websites (including the Holocaust denier forum I talked about above) link to this blog post, and can easily see if the user information used to post comments here is represented there."

Jerzy

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot & more

Postby Hannover » 3 years 10 months ago (Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:48 am)

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek wrote:Emil Karlsson September 16, 2013 at 18:13

"A note to the Holocaust deniers who have attempted to post comments on this article: I have absolutely zero interest in letting my blog be a platform for Holocaust denial. Therefore, I am going to decline publication of such comments. You are welcome to start your own blog or post comments about this article on other blogs or forums that does not take issue with your kind of content. This, however, is not a blog for you.

I can easily see through the tactic of trying to bait me into letting you have a space on this blog. It will not work. I also know what websites (including the Holocaust denier forum I talked about above) link to this blog post, and can easily see if the user information used to post comments here is represented there."

Jerzy
Come on Karlsson, man up and debate us here. We don't want space on your site, we want you to go on the record at this forum when trying to defend the standard 'holocaust' storyline. Why are you afraid?

Karlsson, you are simply running from debate and is making a fool of yourself.

The tide is turning.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1973
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot & more

Postby borjastick » 3 years 10 months ago (Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:29 am)

There you go, he can neither justify nor sustain his position of holocaust believership so he shuts down all comments that might just be the truth. As they say 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story'.

He has been caught out, he knows science, common sense and logic finds the holocaust believers in a wasteland of stupidity so his only route is to shut us out. Heard it all before haven't we?
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Believer Emil Karlsson shoots self in foot & more

Postby Hannover » 3 years 10 months ago (Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:40 am)

borjastick wrote:There you go, he can neither justify nor sustain his position of holocaust believership so he shuts down all comments that might just be the truth. As they say 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story'.

He has been caught out, he knows science, common sense and logic finds the holocaust believers in a wasteland of stupidity so his only route is to shut us out. Heard it all before haven't we?
Indeed, let's not trouble Karlsson's closed mind with facts.
These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures."

- Steven Some, Chairman of the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education, Newark Star-Ledger, 23 Oct. 1996, p 15.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 15 guests