David Cole and Bradley Smith on Phil Donahue show video

[Agrarian Reformer]

I just read Ingrid Rimland's synopsis of David Cole's appearance on the show and I've concluded that she is 5 years old or younger. Cole's "kick him in the balls" remark was HILARIOUS, and even if you didn't think it was funny, how on earth could you construe that as disrespectful to Zundel? It was clearly sarcasm! If there's anything to complain about it's EVERYTHING ELSE that transpired on the program (with the exception of Bradley Smith who was also very good in spite of the juvenile nature of the format).

Good work Bradley and David (wherever you are). This was almost as entertaining as David Duke's appearance on Donahue. And if you really want to see Donahue get eaten alive by facts watch Jared Taylor's appearance on the show, now available on youtube.

Phil Donahue is going to hell!

[Hektor]

...Good work Bradley and David (wherever you are). This was almost as entertaining as David Duke's appearance on Donahue. And if you really want to see Donahue get eaten alive by facts watch Jared Taylor's appearance on the show, now available on youtube....

Found it on Youtube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7S8zDDzPNI
Another nail in the coffin of the Holocaust. This Donahue Chap proves that you don't have to be that smart to get a carreer. All you need is some eloquence and parrot the right lines.

[Coder62]

...Good work Bradley and David (wherever you are). This was almost as entertaining as David Duke's appearance on Donahue. And if you really want to see Donahue get eaten alive by facts watch Jared Taylor's appearance on the show, now available on youtube....

Found it on Youtube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7S8zDDzPNI
Another nail in the coffin of the Holocaust. This Donahue Chap proves that you don't have to be that smart to get a carreer. All you need is some eloquence and parrot the right lines.

You gave the link to the David Cole interview.

Coder62.

[Hektor]

...Good work Bradley and David (wherever you are). This was almost as entertaining as David Duke's appearance on Donahue. And if you really want to see Donahue get eaten alive by facts watch Jared Taylor's appearance on the show, now available on youtube....

Found it on Youtube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7S8zDDzPNI
Another nail in the coffin of the Holocaust. This Donahue Chap proves that you don't have to be that smart to get a carreer. All you need is some eloquence and parrot the right lines.

You gave the link to the David Cole interview.

It's the talkshow with Bradley Smith, David Cole and later they are joined by Michael Shermer.

I think Jareds appearance can be listened to here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplBXtU1eNQ

[Holycaust]

And then I discovered later, I forget who told me, maybe Shermer told me, that he had met backstage with the survivor ladies and chatted them up. He particularly asked them to not say anything "crazy" (something to that effect). Come to think about it I suspect that it was the foolish, fantastical, and probably lying statements of some of the survivor ladies, and his association with them, that might have been at the heart of his embarrassment.

Shermer actually admitted this? Telling the ladies not to say anything too crazy? If he really did that then wow. He's half way to admitting that survivor testimonies aren't very reliable. If Shermer really believes in the case he's arguing then his only words of advise to these ladies should have been simply: "just tell the truth".

[Hektor]

And then I discovered later, I forget who told me, maybe Shermer told me, that he had met backstage with the survivor ladies and chatted them up. He particularly asked them to not say anything "crazy" (something to that effect). Come to think about it I suspect that it was the foolish, fantastical, and probably lying statements of some of the survivor ladies, and his association with them, that might have been at the heart of his embarrassment.

Shermer actually admitted this? Telling the ladies not to say anything too crazy? If he really did that then wow. He's half way to admitting that survivor testimonies aren't very reliable. If Shermer really believes in the case he's arguing then his only words of advise to these ladies should have been simply: "just tell the truth".

Actually I found that some of the remarks Shermer made were a bit strange.
1.) Calling obvious atrocity propaganda, like the lamp shades and soap stories, "mistakes".
2.) Claiming that the burden of proof isn't with those making Holocaust accusations
3.) Absence of proof no proof to the contrary. So what is the proof for the positive then?
4.) What makes 3. so funny, is that he claims at the same time that proof for the Holocaust is "well established.

[Kageki]

Actually I found that some of the remarks Shermer made were a bit strange.
3.) Absence of proof no proof to the contrary. So what is the proof for the positive then?
4.) What makes 3. so funny, is that he claims at the same time that proof for the Holocaust is "well established.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. This is the kind of circular logic that INFURIATES me and I hear it all the time from whom I like to call "conspiracy deniers". Shermer said:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

The thing is in a discussion for say 9/11, deniers routinely ask for evidence that it was a conspiracy. So how come this same standard is not applied for anything else such as for "official" history like the Holocaust? According to this logic I can say the same for any conspiracy theory like JFK and 9/11, but off course in those cases evidence is demanded. How does Shermer get away with this kind of absurd logic while claiming to be a "skeptic" implying that some modicum of scientific rigor is applied? Isn't he also implying there is no evidence for the Holocaust by this statement?

"Slippery slope" argument

Shermer also makes an assumption that revisionists are making a "slippery slope" argument whereas by proving one thing is false then by extension that everything else is false. Not true sir! Revisionists are not making such assumptions. The conclusion is derived after an exhaustive research. No assumptions or a "slippery slope" argument is made.


It is a complete joke to me that Shermer even calls himself a "skeptic" implying that he has critical analysis. Far from it. He comes across as a stooge for the "official" line. A true skeptic to me would probably come to the same conclusion as revisionists such as can be seen in this thread regarding the possibility of "burning pits":

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=9026

[Inquisitive]

Hektor wrote:

1.) Calling obvious atrocity propaganda, like the lamp shades and soap stories, "mistakes".

Sometimes the obvious things tend to go unnoticed. The question is if the soap and lampshade story is a "mistake", what exactly is the truth? What did they see and where did that come from? Why would you want to lie about something so twisted?

[Coder62]

Hektor wrote:

1.) Calling obvious atrocity propaganda, like the lamp shades and soap stories, "mistakes".

Sometimes the obvious things tend to go unnoticed. The question is if the soap and lampshade story is a "mistake", what exactly is the truth? What did they see and where did that come from? Why would you want to lie about something so twisted?

They most likely lied because they were told too by whoever, be it the allied military who wanted to continue the war time propaganda or someone else.
The soap story is a down right lie, as is the lampshade story,

what exactly is the truth?

The truth of the matter is that during war you get propaganda to try and demoralize your enemy, the allies did this by claiming the Nazis were sick minded mass murderers, in WW1 the allies claimed that Germans were eating Belgium babies, a claim dismissed after the war but the fact is that during WW2, this time such propaganda claims were held to be the truth.

What did they see and where did that come from?

As stated above about WW1, they did not need to in fact see anything, all they needed to do was tell a story about it, so horrible that people would believe it, there was never any half eaten Belgium babies after WW1 and there was never any real human soap or lampshades, thus is the nature of war propaganda, or more so allied propaganda

That is my personal opinion of the truth of the soap and lameshade stories, not a mistake, a lie and people still attempt to continue that lie today which they were told to believe 60 years ago, dont forget if your told to lie enough in the end you might just actually believe it.

Coder62[/quote]