Holohoax Scholar Puts Foot in Mouth – My Comments

Jan‘s Advertisement
Die Boere Staat Party
Van Jan: Dit is die ENIGSTE politieke party in Suid-Afrika wat ek sal ondersteun. Ek het hul leier ontmoet en ken hul geskiedenis. *ALLE* ander Politieke Partye in SA is ‘n totale mors van tyd vir Blankes. Hierdie politieke party gee om vir Blankes. Hulle s: Ons veg vir ons Volk se Vryheid en Veilige voortbestaan in die nuwe Suid-Afrika!

[Mike King exposing the lies. However, he says the holohoaxers should put up the White Flag of surrender. What Mike does not seem to appreciate is the raw determination to perpetuate the lie. Jews will win the argument by simply continuing to lie over and over. They defeat you, not through logic, but by refusing to change their lines. I learned this by arguing about Liberalism with my Jewish friend in SA. I kept thinking I was moving him towards reason and then he would snap back to the beginning. When it comes to lying and messing with your head these people have NO EQUALS. NONE! Jan]

The sport of Judo teaches one how to use an adversary’s own weight and strength against him. There is as much of a philosophical component to the sport as there is an athletic. The Judo response is to give way, to not meet force head-on, but to use the enemy’s force in your favor for the purpose of beating him.

As it is in Judo, so it when debating liars. Whenever you can utilize a deceitful opponent’s own concessions to build your case and throw it right back at him; it deals a devastating blow from which he cannot recover. The harder he attacks, the stronger YOU become.

Picture Picture

Use Judo moves on liars.

One thing you will notice about the professional liars of the Fake News and Fake Academia is that, when cornered, they will concede a point for strategic purposes, before following up with a quick "yeah-but" to hold up their argument. Those conceded points should never be allowed to pass for they are the basis of an effective "Judo" response. For example; imagine that an accused car thief is confronted with evidence of his past record of stealing. Forced to concede the point, the thief will say: "Yes. It is true that I stole 7 cars over the past 5 years, but to suggest that I stole this particular car is ridiculous."

We then press the thief on the fact that several witnesses just saw him driving the same color, make & model of the stolen car in question. He again concedes: "Yes. It is true that I was seen driving a vehicle fitting that exact description, but that was a rented car which coincidentally matched the description of the car that you claim I just stole."

When challenged on his ability to rent a car when he has no credit cards, the artful liar, without skipping a beat, retorts: "Yes. It is true that I have no credit cards, but that’s because my cousin, who just moved to Brazil, let me use his credit card."

Now, let us review what we have just learned from our thieving friend, as carelessly confirmed from his own big mouth!

1. He is in fact a repeat car thief.

2. He was in fact driving a vehicle fitting the description of the recently stolen car.

3. He did not possess a credit card, which would have been needed had he really rented a similar car, as claimed.

Those concessions are known as "hard data points." The rest is just fluff. Considered individually, none of those concessions will clinch the prosecution’s case. But taken cumulatively, such self-admitted facts begin to paint the accused liar into a very tight corner. That’s logical Judo for you. And it is precisely why Defense Lawyers advise that suspects should always remain silent when questioned by police. You know, the so-called "Miranda Rights" warning; "Anything you say can and will be used against you."

With this logical principle in mind, let us similarly corner one of one of Holohoaxianty’s High Priests, the esteemed Timothy Ryback, by using the accumulation of his own 2004 written concessions, as published by the oh-so-"prestigious" Wall Street Urinal, against him. Watch as The Maestro bitch-slaps this deceitful ass-clown up and down. This is gonna’ be fun!”

Picture Picture

Tim Ryback is a renown and respected "expert" of the so-called "Holocaust." His 2004 article in the WSJ was a comical case of foot-in-mouth folly.


July 7, 2004
Forensic Evidence Of the Holocaust Must Be Preserved
By Timothy Ryback

Ryback: Last month, Jarek Mensfelt, spokesman for the Auschwitz memorial site, announced plans to preserve the ruins of the gas chambers and crematoria in the notorious death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau near the Polish town of Oswiecim. "This is an attempt to keep it as it is now — in ruins — but not let the ruins go," he said. "It was meant to be here forever as a warning."

Analysis: So, Mr. Ryback, both you and Mr. Mensfelt now admit that what you claim were "gas chambers" and crematoria" now lie in ruins. That means the "gas chambers and crematoria" that are still being shown to the teary-eyed tourists are Soviet-era "reconstructions" — a fact that "Holocaust Deniers" were once attacked for claiming. Thanks for confirming that for us in the Wall Street Urinal, Timmy.


Picture Picture

Images 1 & 2 are of the Soviet-era reconstruction of the "gas chambers" ™. Image 3 depicts the ruins of the what is said to the original "gas chambers". Ryback and the Polish curators concede that what is shown to gullible tourists are NOT the actual "gas chambers" ™.

Ryback: In the coming weeks, as the Auschwitz preservationists begin their work, they should be guided by the knowledge that these heaps of dynamited concrete and twisted steel are not only historic artifacts but among the few remnants of untainted, forensic evidence of the Holocaust.

Analysis: How exactly do these bombed-out remnants constitute "forensic evidence" of mass murdering gas chambers? Have any traces of poisonous gas been detected in the stones?

Ryback: Of course, the historical and circumstantial evidence of a premeditated Nazi plan to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe is overwhelming.

Analysis: Ah yes. The good ol’ "the-evidence-is-overwhelming" rhetorical trick. Such a bold statement may sway the weak-minded, but it proves nothing. Talk is cheap, as they say. My. Ryback, could you please share with us this "overwhelming evidence" of a premeditated "Nazi" plan to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe.

Ryback: There are the watch-tower-girded enclosures of Nazi concentration camps ….

Analysis: "Watch-towers?" Well, duh! They were internment camps, after all. No one is denying the Jewish internment of World War II. What we want is evidence of a genocide campaign. Continue.

Ryback: … and the extensive testimonials of Holocaust survivors…..

Analysis: Yes, "testimonials" which, as even some of your Jewish colleagues now openly admit, are often unreliable. Speaking of "testimonials," what do you have to say of the former Auschwitz inmates who later told of spirited soccer games and fun activities for the children? If the Germans were out to commit genocide, why were so many "survivors" allowed to live? Auschwitz alone had 9,000 survivors when the Soviets arrived there.

Picture Picture

Yakov Tzur testimony, March 2009: "I played soccer games at Auschwitz in 1944."
(YouTube here)

(Other camps had actual competitive Jewish soccer leagues.)

Ryback: …. as well as the court protocols of Nazi war criminals,

Analysis: So-called "Nazi war criminals" were tortured and the Nuremberg Trials were a joke. Those same "court protocols" told of shrunken Jewish heads, and Jews being fashioned into lamp shades and bars of soaps — claims which all "Holocaust scholars" now admit were false.

Ryback: …. but there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent.

Analysis: Hold it! What did you just say???

Ryback: …but there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent.

Analysis: That’s what I thought you said. Thank you! After just having talked about "overwhelming evidence," now you say "there is little forensic evidence." How can that be?

Ryback: The Nazis were scrupulous when it came to obscuring the "Final Solution" in bureaucratic euphemism and also dismantling or obliterating their machinery of death.

Analysis: Yet they left the remains of the "gas chambers" ™ on the camp grounds along with 9,000 witnesses behind for the Soviets to interview. That doesn’t sound like too "scrupulous" of a cover up now, does it?

Ryback: The dearth of hard evidence ….

Analysis: A "dearth (complete lack) of hard evidence." Dearth is a very strong word. Thank you, Timmy. Thank you, thank you and thank you!

Ryback: … has fueled a growth industry in Holocaust-denial.

Analysis: "Holocaust Denial" — a silly slogan used to silence debate. In other words, just because there is a "dearth of hard evidence," it is still wrong to question the Holocaust. This is known as "circular logic." It is like a prosecutor saying to a jury: "Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, do not let the ‘dearth’ of hard evidence influence your verdict. The only reason why there is no hard evidence is because the defendant covered his tracks so well."

Absurd, to say the least. But thanks just the same, Timmy, for conceding that hard evidence is totally lacking.

Picture Picture

Open mouth, insert foot: "The dearth of hard evidence." Thanks,Timmy!

Ryback: The revisionists’ plaint is simple: They demand a proverbial "smoking gun" to prove that the Nazis deliberately and systematically designed an industrial system of extermination.

Analysis: Well, excuuuuuse us "revisionists" for being so impertinent as to simply ask for evidence of this "industrial system of extermination." But thanks for admitting that there is no "smoking gun" and that you cannot prove your case.

Ryback: Auschwitz has been a particular target of Holocaust deniers — in particular, the gas chamber in Auschwitz I, the original base camp a mile east of Birkenau. It was here that some of the first experiments with poison gas were undertaken in a converted air-raid shelter refitted with air-tight doors and special ducts for homicidal purposes. Dynamited by the Nazis in the autumn of 1944, the gas chamber was reconstructed after the war.

Analysis: Why did the "Nazis" dynamite the "gas chamber?" Did they suddenly decide to stop "gassing" people? And thanks again for conceding that the current "gas chamber" is a Soviet reconstruction — a fake.

Ryback: As one revisionist notes: "The official view holds that the Soviets and Poles created a ‘gas chamber’ in an air-raid shelter that had been a ‘gas chamber’. The revisionist view holds that Soviets and Poles created a ‘gas chamber’ in an air-raid shelter that had been an air-raid shelter." While most serious historians refuse to dignify such statements with a response, Polish administrators have taken the bait.

Analysis: Ah yes. The "No serious person" Logical Fallacy and the old "I-refuse-to-dignify-that-with-a-response" rhetorical trick. It is the sure sign of an empty case, and an empty mind, when one has to resort to such pathetic High School debating tactics.

Ryback: In response to revisionist charges, they (the Poles) tested the gas chamber walls for residual traces of cyanide gas but found none.

Analysis: They found no residual traces of cyanide gas. THANK YOU!

Ryback: Unlike the delousing chambers whose walls still show cyanide "staining,"…..

Analysis: And thanks for admitting that there were "delousing chambers" at Auschwitz. In so doing, you have confirmed the fact that the Germans were trying to prevent the inmates from dying of typhus. I suppose they had to save the Jews in order to kill them?

Ryback: ….. the gas chambers betrayed no residual traces of Zyklon B.

Analysis: So, in addition to your concessions that there is a "dearth" of hard evidence, and that the gas chambers ™ are Soviet reconstructions, you further concede that the forensic analysis shows no traces of "Zyklon B" (a pesticide-turned-into-poison) in the stone walls. Stone is like sponge, Timmy. Any poison gas would have been absorbed and preserved for posterity to analyze, as it was in the de-lousing chambers which, as you conceded, do indeed show traces of bug spray. Can you explain, or should I say, rationalize that bit of scientific reality away for us, Timmy?
Go ahead, Timmy Two-Face. Tell us why not a single trace of deadly chemicals was found in the analysis. We just gotta hear this!
We’re still waiting, Timmy.

Ryback: The homicidal process was so murderously brief that the cyanide never penetrated the interior surface.

Picture Picture

"Murderously brief!" — ROFLMFAO!!! Mass-murder gassings of millions of people were too "murderously brief" to leave a trace, but the delousing of clothes with a much smaller does of Zyklon B did leave a trace? That’s a good one!

Similarly, it was found that repeated postwar "cleaning" had leached the last traces of cyanide from the heaps of human hair, one of the most damning pieces of Holocaust evidence.

Analysis: Let me get this straight, Timmy. You’re saying that the "Nazis" shaved the heads of their victims after killing them in poison-gas chambers but before finally cremating them? And that the poison-saturated hair was later shampooed by the Soviets and the chemical traces are now gone? Are you flippin’ serious? What were the "Nazis" planning to do with the "heaps of human hair?" Make wigs? And why would the shaving of hair be considered a "damning piece of evidence" when it was done to prevent the spread of typhus-carrying lice. Doesn’t that prove that the big bad "Nazis" were NOT out to kill their prisoners?

Ryback: In the battle against Holocaust deniers, Birkenau’s extermination facilities remain important forensic evidence.

Analysis: Timmy! You’re gonna give a friggin’ heart-attack! What forensic evidence?! You just admitted that there are no traces of poison in neither the stones nor the hair. There you go again with that quintessentially Jewish circular reasoning. "The gas chambers existed. Although there is a "dearth" of hard evidence; that doesn’t disprove anything because we already know that the gas chambers existed."

Ryback: Between 1942, when they were first put into operation, and 1944, when they were dynamited, more than a million human beings — mostly Jewish

Jan‘s Advertisement
Video: What Adolf Hitler said about the Boers
I decided to look in Adolf Hitlers Mein Kampf (My Struggle) to see what he said about the Boers. Few know of his obsession with the Boers when he was a young man. In Mein Kampf I found many references which indicated that Hitler had a knowledge even of the black tribes that live in South Africa.

%d bloggers like this:
Skip to toolbar