anti-Revisionist Michael Shermer and his book debunked

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri May 23, 2003 9:45 pm)

Shermer also mentions in his books getting a Neville Bryant, photo expert at NASA to help him to do 'digital enhancements' to the photos and the rendition we see in Shermer's book captioned 'Prisoners on the way to gas chamber' is one of them.

After his first book, 'Why People Believe Weird Things' came out I called Mr.Bryant about it and he more or less strove to disassociate himself from it all. We can see in Shermer's book he only refers to getting Bryant to do digital enhancements but he doesn't say anything about Bryant doing any interpretation.

I had ask Shermer about it during one encounter and he said that Bryant would be just not wanting to claim NASA was involved.

In the end run it's just a matter of Shermer dropping the name of NASA in his book anyway to give his nonsense some authority.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9803
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat May 24, 2003 1:59 pm)

comedian, New Jersey Moran said:

At best it would be 'Trees on their way to gas chambers'.


At best, what Shermer's writing signifies is Shermer on the way to the bank....'The Bank of the Holocau$t' that is.
I would be curious to see just how much money Shermer has made with his anti-science offerings to the alter of True Believers.

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

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun May 25, 2003 10:09 am)

Shermer is probably into anti-revisionism because he is 'ethnically' tied to the Holocaust community.

The most poetically ridiculous thing about Shermer's campaign against Holocaust revisionism is that he positions himself as a master skeptic with his 'Skeptic Society' and yet he commits a lot of energy into anti-Holocaust skepticism. When it comes to the Holocaust story Shermer is one of the major anti-skeptics.

Shermer also puts himself into the hot seat by focusing his 'skepticism' against Christian fundamentalists/creationists. Whether or not that body of persons is bonkers or not their beliefs are nonetheless religious beliefs and if Shermer finds it okay to attack that then why does he strive ala 'between the lines' to portray Holocaust skeptics as bigots, misguided and sneaky in their methodology?

Studying Shermer's own methodology it's obvious he employs the same kind of tactics he accuses others of doing.

Check out this from Shermer -
"Methodology of Holocaust Denial"

Before addressing the three main axes of Holocaust denial, let us look for a moment at the deniers' methodology, their modes of argument. Their lacies of reasoning are eerily similar to those of other fringe groups, as creationists.

I. They concentrate on their opponents' weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position. Deniers emphasize the inconsistencies between eyewitness accounts, for example.

2. They exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents' conclusions were wrong, all of their opponents' conclusions must be wrong. Deniers point to the human soap story, which has turned out to be a myth, and talk about "the incredible shrinking Holocaust" because historians have reduced the number killed at Auschwitz from four million to one million.

3. They use quotations, usually taken out of context, from prominent mainstream figures to buttress their own position. Deniers quote Yehuda Bauer, Raul Hilberg, Arno Mayer, and even leading Nazis.

4. They mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field. Deniers take the intentionalist-functionalist debate about the development of the Holocaust as an argument about whether the Holocaust happened or not.

5. They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit and discount data that do not fit. Deniers concentrate on what we do not know about the gas chambers and disregard all the eyewitness accounts and forensic tests that support the use of gas chambers for mass murder.

There we have Shermer telling the world how Holocaust skeptics go about it. It's obvious he strives to portray them as dishonest and corrupt.

That is Shermer's methodology.

Just looking at Shermer's last statement "5." we can see where he says deniers "disregard" eyewitness accounts and forensic tests when the real record shows deniers address those head on, one by one.

What we have in the over all is Shermer ala Deborah Lipstadt ala the rest of the Holocaust community in general telling us how Holocaust skeptics go about and then again we have the record of how Holocaust skeptics really go about it.

Shermer's methodology is to attack revisionist methodology by using that exact methodology that he lists. That's his record.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9803
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun May 25, 2003 12:17 pm)

Tom Moran astutely observed:

Studying Shermer's own methodology it's obvious he employs the same kind of tactics he accuses others of doing.

...we can see where he says deniers "disregard" eyewitness accounts and forensic tests when the real record shows deniers address those head on, one by one.


That behaviour is what psychologists call 'projection'. This occurs when certain people or groups 'project' their own flaws, defects, & lies upon others; they accuse others of doing what in fact they do. We see it regularily from the True Believer, judeo-supremacist community.

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

steve
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby steve » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu May 29, 2003 6:25 pm)

Tom Moran :

The photo is a isolated view of Crema IV taken from the Allied aerial recon shot of May 31, 1944 and is captioned as "Prisoners on their way to gas chambers" with a highlighted box around the images he refers to.

As it turns out it so happens that the exact same images can be seen in the Allied photo of June 26, 1944 which would mean that either the highlighted boxed in features identified as prisoners would have been standing in the exact same place for almost a month or they are what they appear to be in association with proximate images - trees.



This is just the sort of thing I value most in debunking the Big H.
Similar to the picture Hannover posts with every post. (The fake smoke.)
It does not require anything but common sense. It is self explanatory. Why add the smoke?

Similarly, if the "people" in the photos are in the SAME place, then obviously, they are not people. I guess, on those two days, those evil, vicious Nazis actually decided to gas trees.

Anyway, can anyone provide a link to the two photos Tom is referring to?

Steve

Gorgias
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 6:56 am

Re: anti-Revisionist Michael Shermer and his book debunked

Postby Gorgias » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Jun 22, 2003 5:02 am)

Hannover wrote:Michael Shermer has his head handed to him by Italy's Carlos Mattogno. Shermer attempts to appear objective, but as Mattogno quickly points out, it's for appearances only. Read on, comments invited.

[...]

Mattogno writes:

"Being quite aware that this work may fall into the silent catacombs of holocaust historiography, it is never-the-less hoped that it may prove useful to some honest people free from prejudice, not only because they may be presented with new considerations resulting from the above-mentioned works, but also because it is a demonstration of how one historical Revisionist can demolish in a few weeks a work that "lasted for years" with the collaboration of the world-wide holocaust lobby. As for historians who do not partake in this despite the solid arguments that provoke their silent embarrassment, that is beyond doubt most disturbing."


But perhaps this work that "lasted for years" was not in vain.

On page 103 of their book the authors inform us: "Deniers stress what we do not know about gas chambers and disregard eyewitness accounts. as well as photographs of the gas chambers in operation".

As far as I know these kind of photos were never before found or presented in the litterature. But according to this book these photos exist and are available somewhere. Unfortunately the footnote just points to Cole's interview.

But now we know that we have at least 2 photos of the gas chambers "in operation", don't we?

User avatar
oberststuhlherr
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:30 pm

Postby oberststuhlherr » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:09 pm)

This whole long diatribe is in response to the frequent use of the word "debunk" on this forum.

I'd like to make a comment on terminology. I understand the anger and indignation a person can feel when they are faced with what they believe to be a glaring and harmful untruth. Regardless of where the final consensus (if one is ever reached) falls, I know there have been lies, evil lies, promulgated about what happened in and to Germany in the first half of the 20th Century.

When we feel that anger and indignation, we are often tempted to show it. Unfortunately, that may not serve the end of persuading people to the rightness of your cause. I had this sense when I read Graf's Giant with feet of Clay. I cannot say Graf's hostility toward Hilberg is unjustified. Nonetheless, from the perspective of a person attempting to be an impartial judge, it came across as vindictive. It may work better to really focus on the argument, and avoid accusing language such as "swindle", etc.

If your logic is strong enough to stand on its own right, there should be no need to attack the character of the opponent. To the undecided audience, or to the audience leaning toward you opponent, attacking him personally is likely to grant him the appearance of a victim.

As regards the use of the word "debunk", I have an innate tendency doubt the author who tells me he has "debunked" his opponent's argument.

Like I say, I understand the resentment, and indignation that is behind this hostile language, and I can avenge with the best of 'em. I'm just trying to convey how these words might appear to the skeptic.
"From October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were ... of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany." Brüning, 1937

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9803
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:29 pm)

Say what you will, but not only do we say we debunk the Believers, we actually do it, and show it. Then we invite them to attempt to refute our points.

Look at Moran's point, it's bullet proof. Look at Graf's book, he crushes Hilberg.

If Believer's don't like it, then they can debate us right here. That is certainly more than those that mandate the 'holocau$t' Religion will allow.

We can back it up, they cannot.

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

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:24 pm)

Another critic of Dr. Shermer’s logic is Lyle Burkhead in:
Michael Shermer's "Jumping Together" Argument
http://www.geniebusters.org/915/04g_jumping.html

This is an interesting description of the techniques and methods used by some anti-revisionists in essays and in debates. It is worth reading.

Know your opponents!

User avatar
onemanshowmcd
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Postby onemanshowmcd » 1 decade 4 years ago (Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:58 pm)

In regards to Mr. Shermer's evaluation of the aerial photos of the Birkenau camp I see nothing out of the ordinary with people streaming to the Krema with American bombers flying overhead. After all they did do double duty as air raid shelters.

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/SC/inconabr_2.html
"Oh. Lord, make my enemies ridiculous."

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 5 months ago (Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:35 am)

An "updated and expanded" edition of Shermer's and Grobman's book is currently being advertised, containing "a new chapter and epilogue examining current, shockingly mainstream revisionism".
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8295001.php

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Postby PotPie » 1 decade 5 months ago (Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:56 pm)

People like Shermer who wish to debunk revisionism always seem to have to resort to using the "testimonies" of fake witnesses and pass them off to the unknowing average reader. Why is that? Can't they find someone that stands up to scrutiny?

:lol:

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Postby PotPie » 1 decade 5 months ago (Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:57 pm)

onemanshowmcd wrote:In regards to Mr. Shermer's evaluation of the aerial photos of the Birkenau camp I see nothing out of the ordinary with people streaming to the Krema with American bombers flying overhead. After all they did do double duty as air raid shelters.

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/SC/inconabr_2.html


Good observation.

jheitwler
Member
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:46 pm

Postby jheitwler » 1 decade 5 months ago (Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:03 pm)

Vlad wrote:An "updated and expanded" edition of Shermer's and Grobman's book is currently being advertised, containing "a new chapter and epilogue examining current, shockingly mainstream revisionism".
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8295001.php




I wonder if he'll acknowledge his debate with Mark Weber back in 1995 in this updated and expanded edition of the book? He detailed his appearance on Phil Donohue opposite Bradley Smith/David Cole in the first edition of the book but was strangely silent on the Weber debate.

What I'm curious about is on Donohue he mentions talking to his 'fellow holocaust scholars' about some of the issues revisionists have raised and was awaiting their reply. In the Weber debate he discusses his recent visit to the death camps and his attempt to get answers about some of the incongruities he saw.

Surely fifteen years is long enough for these 'fellow scholars' to get back to him with cogent answers, isn't it?

I bet this updated edition is the death knell for revisionism. Schermer's going to tear all of us a new one. He's going to put us in our place. When he's through with us, we'll all believe in the holocaust just like we did way back when we first started reading about it. We're going to....ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

This should be good for a few laughs. : )
"First of all there is the fact that if we assume the Holocaust to have happened more or less as told, all the evidence becomes intelligible, while if we assume it was a hoax, most of the evidence does not make any sense." - Robert Jan Van Pelt

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 5 months ago (Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:40 pm)

The additional chapter will probably be more or less identical with Shermer's recent article in his Skeptic magazine. Richard Widmann's comments can be found here:
http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vprwshermer.html


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests