> On Feb 10, 6:23 pm, William Daffer wrote:
> > “ataturkey” writes:
> > > Calling everybody liar who do not agree with your side reminds one
> > > that most people judge others after themselves.
> > However, calling them a liar because their disagreement depends upon
> > lies is no error.
> Do you think that your insults are more convincing than Cramer’s well
> documented posts?
If you think that Cramer is documenting anything, well or otherwise,
you’ve just demonstrated that you really are ignorant of what’s
First off, he doens’t do any of his own work, everything he posts
that isn’t larded through with obscenity, misogony or anti-semitica
is pulled wholesale off some deniers website. And he accepts that
stuff sight-unseen. So claiming that he’s presenting ‘well
documentated’ posts only demonstrates what an easily decieved rube
Secondly, his method of ‘investigation’ into the Holocaust is merely
to deny anything that doesn’t accord with his conclusions. No
argument, no reason, in fact it’s quite clear that Cramer, along
with the Knolls, is the purest deniers here: they are almost
completely ignorant of the history, they just make stuff up and lie
about everything. They’re obscene, racist, misogonistic twits and
you do yourself grave disservice by allying with them.
> I think that you are just trying to cover up your
> own lies and distortions with your name calling.
While I think you’re demonstrating your stupidity by describing
Cramers posts as ‘well documentated.’ Clearly you can’t have
actually done any research because it’s childs play to debunk these
> Let me give some advice;
LOL! Thanks, but no thanks. You’re in no position to be offering
advice to anyone on the subject.
Let’s look at one of Cramers ‘well documented’ posts, shall we?
Which is merely a cut-n-paste of
without any attribution (frequently this is called ‘plagiarism’)
If you look at the whole post, you’ll see that there’s no comment by
Cramer, no analysis, no *thinking*. He just accepts whatever is said
in this post and regurgitates it as the gospel truth.
Let’s consider one paragraph in this screed.
The leading pre-war expert on Jewish population statistics, Arthur
Ruppin, stated that there were 16,7 million Jews in the world in
1939 (13). For the immediate postwar years, the World Almanac gave
the following figures: 15,19 million in 1945 and 15,7 million in
the following four years, from 1946 to 1949. But it its 1949
issue, the World Almanac quoted the figures furnished by the
American Jewish committee according to which there had been 16,6
million Jews in 1939 and only 11,2 million in 1947 (14). On the
other hand, in an article published in the Jewish-owned New York
Times in early 1948, Hanson Baldwin, a military expert and
specialist on Palestine, stated that there were between 15 and 18
million Jews worldwide (15). As you see, the Jewish world
population statistics enable you as easily to prove that the
Holocaust took place as they allows you to prove that it didn’t;
it just depends upon which statistics you prefer to believe. It’s
not in these statistics that we are going to find the answer to
our question how many Jews really perished as a result of German
13) John Sack, An Eye for an Eye, New York 1993.
14) World Almanac 1949, p. 204.
The first thing to know about this passage is that it leaves out
several crucial pieces of information and embroiders others
1. Hanson Baldwin may have been a military expert, but he wasn’t a
population expert. (the embroidery) 2. In the article in question
Baldwin is discussing the military situation in Palestine, hardly
surprising since that was his job. In that article he gives many
figures. Some are outright numbers (e.g. 1,250,000, suggesting
that he actually knew the number rather precisely) and some are
‘figurative’ (e.g. 16 million, suggesting that he didn’t) Try to
guess into which category the population statistic falls. (more
embellishment on the part of Jurgen Graf which Cramer, and now
you, simply accept unthinkingly)
Several days later, the N.Y.Times published a codicil to this
article, it stated
‘Last Sunday’s article incorrectly estimated the Jewish
population of the world at 15 to 18 million. No census has
been conducted since the war, and estimates are only
approximate, but most authorities agree that Hitler’s
wholesale massacres of Jews during the war reduced the Jewish
population to perhaps 12 million today.”
This little nugget is omitted entirely from Graf’s article and,
since Cramer accepts Graf unthinkingly and you think Cramer’s crap
is so ‘well documented’ you simply don’t know about it, now do you,
But there’s more.
Later, Baldwin replied by letter to an inquiry from Morris Kominsky,
which letter is published in the book “The Hoaxers.” It reads in
‘The world Jewish population figures printed in this story came
from the 1948 edition of the World Almanac. Later we checked it
with the American Jewish Committee and other sources and said in
the correction, as I noted to you in my previous letter, that the
authorities agree that Hitler’s wholesale massacre of Jews during
the war reduced the Jewish population to perhaps 12 million today
Here’s the crucial point. Graf is going to use numbers from the AJC
later in his screed. By doing so he’s accepted them as authoritative
enough to become part of the conversation. In the passage above,
Baldwin is admitting that he used numbers from the World Almanac and
then accepted nubmers from the AJC, both sources the Graf
accepts. Yet the reason for Graf to include Baldwin in his screed
was to attempt to discredit the World Almanac and AJC!
Since neither you nor Cramer see fit to actually do the legwork to
check the passage in question, you don’t know that the first quoted
‘authority’ in Graf’s passage above doesn’t hold the opinion
attributed to him by Graf.
That makes Graf a liar for claiming Baldwin as a source and Cramer
a gullible fool for believing him. It makes Graf more a liar for not
telling you (the reader) that Baldwin isn’t the authority Graf has
made him out to be and therefore Baldwin can’t be used to contradict
the information in the World Almanac since 1) that’s were he got it
himself and 2) he’s now accepted the AJC’s estimate.
Since all of Cramer’s ‘well documented’ articals are all in the same
category, namely cut-n-paste jobs from deniers websites, we can take
this example as the norm. Which means that your rising to Cramer’s
defense and bemoaning how he’s being mistreated for posting his
‘well documented posts’ rather handily demosntrates you a gullible
twit for thinking these posts ‘well documented’ when, in fact,
they’re rather easily debunked and rather nicely demolishes any
claim you might have made to objectivity.
So here’s my advice to you. The fact that something posted by Cramer
has some *verisimilitude*, is fairly well-spoken and has a wealth of
footnotes does not make it ‘well documented’ or *true*.
But the sad, sad demosntration of your and Cramer’s gullibility
doesn’t end here, there’s more. Much more.
The second ‘source’ given in Graf’s passage is the World Almanac
itself. I’ve been trying *for years* to see whether any one of you
yahoos (and here I’m using that word in its original sense) would
actually go to a library and *look at the World Almanac* instead of
just stupidly and gullibly taking Graf’s (or whichever
denier-du-jour writing the same debunked trash) word for it, but
none of you ever do. I can only conclude that you all sense that
something is wrong with the population statistics argument that
you’ve been harping on but you really don’t want to know, so you’re
protecting yourself from the guilty knowledge.
Moreover, your reluctance to do any work certainly strengthens the
conclusion that you are, to the man, woman or child of you, lazy
buffonish cusses who wouldn’t know how to do historical research if
you were beaned with an instruction manual.
In anycase, I have done this teensy bit of research and can you
guess what I found?
Well, the Graf is lying, again. And Cramer, by posting this crap, is
a gullible fool and you, for rising to his defense, is another in
long line of credulous twits.
Just to remind you, here’s the passage in question again.
… the World Almanac gave the following figures: 15,19 million in
1945 and 15,7 million in the following four years, from 1946 to
1949. But it its 1949 issue, the World Almanac quoted the figures
furnished by the American Jewish committee according to which
there had been 16,6 million Jews in 1939 and only 11,2 million in
14) World Almanac 1949, p. 204.
First off, my copy for 1945 world almanac as 15.68 million (p. 494)
which I take to be the 15.7 Graf uses (there will be a comment on
Graf’s method of rounding in just a second, by the way) but that’s
because there are multiple places in the Almanac which have
population statistics. So here we see Graf doing something else that
deniers do: cherry-picking his numbers to make his argument _seem_
Don’t get me wrong, he may well quoting a real number, but that
doesn’t given the whole story, something an honest person would make
sure to give. In fact, it does quite the opposite, it gives us a
clue as to his argumentative method.
He says that the number is 15.19 million in 1945 _and 15.7 for the
following 4 years_. [emphais mine] The last clause is true, from
1946 to 1949 the number 15.7 is given. But the statement is also
true for 1945 as well, as I’ve just pointed out. By leaving it out
Graf is giving you the impression that the World Jewish population
actually *increased* between 1945 and 1946 only to drop
precipitously in 1949! That’s dishonest.
I presume the 1947 that appears in the text is wrong, that he really
means 1949 that’s given in the footnote. I can verify that an
estimate from the AJC of 11.266 given in 1949 on page 204. But so is
the estimate of 15.7, on page 289
A little comment on how Graf rounds things: he clearly knows the
rule. He rounded the 15.688 million estimate of 1946 *up* to 15.7,
so he should have rounded 11.266 estimate of 1949 up to
11.3. Instead, he rounded *down* to 11.2. But that’s what he want’s,
isn’t it? To make the drop seem as precipitous as possible.
The point here is that merely quoting a statistic from an almanac
while withholding pertinent information about the sources and
accuracy of these estimates, as well as information about the
existence of multiple estimates and, furthermore, cherry-picking the
estimates for certain years and using inconsistent rounding shows
that Graf is arguing in furtherance of a rhetorical agenda and not
for the truth of the matter.
In short, it demonstrates that Graf lies.
Here are the estimates I have from 1939 till 1949. Those between
1939 and 1949 in the 15 million range clearly indicate in their
attribution that the numbers are from *pre-war census*. Here’s the
Year Estimate Page Estimate Date Attribution
1938 16.24 258 1936 JSI
1938 15.315 258 1933 AJC
1939 15.315 288 1933 AJC
1940 16.24 518 1936 JSI
1940 15.29 519 1938 AJC
1941 15.75 510 1939 AJC
1942 15.68 594 1939 AJC
from 1942 through 1948 the same table appears, clearly indicating
that the figures are from 1939.
1949 11.266 204 1947/48 AJC
1949 15.71 289 unknown unknown
I suspect that in all years between 42 and 48, inclusive, the 15.71
figure also appears.
A rational human being would realize that it’s rather hard to take a
census during a war, particularly a war as all-encompassing and
destructive as WWII so the fact that the numbers didn’t change
between 1939 and 1946 is hardly surprising. He would also realize
that those number are, therefore, virtually useless that in 1944
there very probably weren’t 15.7 million Jews alive.
Moreover, a rational human being would see that Graf withholding the
fact that these data from the war years is virtually meaningless
because it’s all based on pre-war data is a sign that he’s lying in
his argument. And his cherry-picking his numbers, as in the case of
the number he gives for 1945, is just more proof. And he’s rounding
them in a way consistent only with the hypothesis that he wants the
drop in Jewish population to seem as precipitous as possible, all of
which demonstrates that this part of this ‘article’ by Graf is
And Cramer, buying it hook-line-and-sinker just shows what a
credulous buffon he is.
And you rising to his defense, …, well, you get the picture.
Now, this isn’t the first time that Cramer has alighted on this
topic. In fact, he seems to have a fascination with the population
statistics, here’s another of his ‘well documented’ posts that
touches on the subject.
Which, again, is merely a plagiarized repost of
Even you should be able to recognize a neo-nazi website when you see one.
This one has many examples of the same sort of denier methodology:
misquote, missatribution and outright fabrication. For example,
let’s look at the following paragraph
Immediately after World War II, Allied authorities declared that
“Jews had been gassed” in all German concentration
camps. … Simon Wiesenthal, of the “Holocaust Center” in Los
Angeles, stated in Books and Bookmen, April 1975, page 5, “No
gassing took place in any camp on German soil.”
. . .
Let’s run down the list of what’s wrong with this passage
1. No. Allied authorities did not declare that ‘”Jews had been
gassed” *in all German concentration camps*’ Perhaps someone said
something like that at some time very near the end of the war in a
heated moment. But to inflate that into something like an
*official pronouncement* by ‘Allied authorities’ is the worst sort
I can see why Fields does it, though. It does set up his
rhetorical manuever, namely.
2. No, Simon Wiesenthal did not say “no gassings too place on any
camp in German soil.” The fact that those words are in quotes and
an attribution given (Books and Bookmen, page 5, Apr 1975) means
that this passage is meant as a quote. That’s how one signifies
quoting in the written word. Cramer may not understand this, but
Fields assuredly does.
But if you go to that page of that edition of Books and Bookmen,
what you find Weisenthal *actually* said is
‘Because there were no _extermination camps_ on German soil the
Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not
I’m hoping that you’re intelligent enough to see the difference
between “no gassings on any camp on German soi” and “no
extermination camps on German soil” because Cramer couldn’t. It’s
one of the reasons I call him an idiot.
I’m also hoping that you’re smart enough to see that to claim,as
StormFront continues to do, that Weisenthal ever wrote the words
they attribute to him, is a demonstration of their fundamental
dishonesty. And it’s not just Storm Front. Every holocaust denier
website out there has some variation on this supposed quote.
The Jewish-owned New York Times reported in 1945 that
Soviet Russia supplied the figure of four million Jews having been
put to death, “in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.” However, in July
of 1990, the Polish government reduced this figure to 1.1 million
and it was accepted by Jewish groups. Despite this evidence, the
“official figure” of six million dead was not lowered to three
3. Yes the Soviet’s did give a figure of 4 million. What deniers
never tell you is
3.1 That it was based on the cremation capacity the Nazis
calculated. And the Soviets, along with some assumptions
about the usage of the crematoria, concluded that 4 million
had been killed there. Not a very reliable method
3.2. The calculation wasn’t just for ‘Jews’, but all victims,
just as that infamous plaque deniers always grouse about
doesn’t use the word “jew” at all.
Don’t believe me? Will you believe Carlos Porter? He’s more your
type, isn’t he?
Report by the Soviet War Crimes Commission, 6 May 1945. There were
usually 200,000 inmates at one time in the extermination camp of
Auschwitz. _Over 4 million people_ from the countries occupied by
Germany were killed in Auschwitz, in most cases by gas immediately
after their arrival; the remainder were first used for labour or
for medical experiments and later killed in various ways
(injections, ill treatment etc.). Details relating to the camp and
the persons responsible for the crimes.
1) the Germans exterminated over _four million citizens_ of the
Soviet Union, Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Czechoslovakia,
Roumania, Hungary, and other countries by shooting and
monstrous tortures in Auschwitz camp;
Over _4,000,000 murdered_
In the five crematoria alone, with their 52 retorts, the Germans
were able to exterminate the following numbers of prisoners since
In crematorium no. 1, which existed for 24 months, 9,000 bodies
could be burnt monthly, which means a total of 216,000 during the
entire period of its existence;
The corresponding figures are:
– crematorium no. 9: 19 months, 90,000 bodies per month, total
figure 1,710,000 bodies;
– crematorium no. 3, 18 months, 90,000 bodies per month, total
figure 1,620,000 bodies;
– crematorium no. 4: 17 months, 45,000 bodies per months, total
figure 765,000 bodies;
– crematorium no. 5: 18 months, 45,000 bodies per month .
The total capacity of all five crematoria was 279,000 bodies per
month, for a total figure of 5,121,000 for the entire period of
Since the Germans also burnt a great number of bodies on pyres,
the capacity of the installations for the extermination of human
beings in Auschwitz must be considered to be much higher in fact
than this figure would suggest. But even when one considers that
individual crematoria may not have worked to full capacity, or
they might have been shut down for repairs part of the time, the
technical commission established that the German hangmen killed
not less than _4,000,000 citizens_ of the USSR, Poland, France,
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Holland,
Belgium, and other countries during the period of the existence of
Not one instance of the word ‘Jew’, and a clear indication that
the ‘4 million’ comes from the Soviets and their estimate was based
on cremation capacity.
So Field’s claim that the notion that ‘four million Jews put to
death’ is a lie outright, The Soviets didn’t say ‘jews’
The sentence beginning ‘However, in July of 1990…’ is grossly
misleading because no historian ever accepted that 4 million
people, much less Jews, had been gassed at Auschwtiz. The first
estimate for a death toll at Auschwitz/Birkenau was given in 1953
by Reitlinger of between 800,00 and 900,000, so the implication
that historians believed in the 4 million until nearly 1990 is
laughible. I’m hoping that you should be smart enough to realize
that the total of 6 million didn’t depend on the 4 million in the
first place and, therefore, this supposed ‘reduction’ that should
have occured in 1990 to overall Holocaust death toll, as implied
by the last sentence in the Fields quote above, is completely
specious, and, in fact, an outright lie.
The World Almanac for 1947, in quoting figures supplies by the
American Jewish Committee states that the world Jewish population
in 1939 was 15,688,259. The New York Times of February 22, 1948,
stated that the world Jewish population ranged from 15,600,000 to
And we’re back to the World Almanac again, but this time the
‘story’ has a twist. Can you see it?
Probably not, so I’ll make it explicit.
Fields uses the exact same rhetorical move as Graf, (so much so,
that it’s hard to figure out who plagiarized whom), namely: first
the world almanac, then the N.Y. Times (pointedly identified as
“Jewish”) article of 22 Feb, 1948, which is just Baldwin article again.
But here Field’s gives exact numbers when we already know that
Baldwin used generalities, i.e. ‘fifteen to eighteen million Jews
… [in] the world’
So, how could Fields have more exact information than the author of
the article he’s quoting? Easy, he just makes it up, and then he
‘ups’ the exactitude of the source he’s quoting hoping that he will
seem more authoritative. Or, rather, he takes some numbers, in the
article, adds them together and then writes his sentences as if
Baldwin had said it.
This is another example of dishonest reporting on the part of a
denier and it compounds the dishonesty of not telling your audience
that the author you’re quoting as an authority doesn’t hold the
opinion you’re attributing to him.
That’s a twofer! Gee, debunking deniers is fun!
> but I see people calling others liars as much as your side
> does on account of positions your side does not agree with, the normal
> reaction is that the people who are so quick to call others liars are
> in fact the biggest liars.
On the contrary. Calling people liars when one can actually
demonstrate that they lie about the evidence, as I have just done,
has the salutary effect of demonstrating those poor turkeys who rise
to the defense of those liars with such lame arguments as you’ve
just made to be gullible fools they are, fools who believe things
not because they’ve investigated them on their own, not because
they’ve thought about them, not because they actually know the
subject, but because they *like* someone and think what they post is
cool and ‘well documentated’ even though it clearly isn’t.
bye-bye now, turkey.
National Runt, demonstrating his idea of informed debate
Hello! I can barely make out the relevant portions of what you are
saying! Can you hear me? Hello! Are you in need of assistance?