Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
alt.revisionism
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
   Messages 176 - 195 of 195 - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals) < Older 
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
John Morris  
View profile  
 More options Mar 18 2004, 3:29 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: John Morris <John.Mor...@UAlberta.CA>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:29:54 GMT
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <20040318144455.12281.00001...@mb-m02.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 18 Mar 2004 19:44:55 GMT, debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:

You have not posted any evidence whatsoever to support your new
assertion that the murder of Father Tomassi was a hate crime.

>  You are, of course,
> free to disagree with my assessment and post your reasons for doing
> so, and you have in fact already done so.  That being said, don't
> you think it time to move along now?

No.  You have made a new assertion.  You have asserted that it is a
fact that Father Tomassi's murder was a hate crime.  What is your
evidence to support that claim of fact?

> >Father Tomassi was a physician who came regularly to minister to
> >the sick in the Jewish Quarte
> With no intent upon conversion?  I think not.

Mere speculation, Joe.  Your speculations are not evidence in support
of your claim of fact that Father Tomassi's murder was a hate crime.

> > It is considered an act of supreme
> >charity not only by Christians, but also by Jews.
> Apparently some of those Jews were resentful of his solicititude.

What the torture of the suspects "apparently" turned up was that they
bled Father Tomassi for ritual purposes.  Not only did the torturers
"apparently" find some bone fragments and a shred of cloth, the
torture sessions also "apparently" led them to a vial Tomassi's
blood.

But the torture sessions that you rely upon for your single shred of
evidence did not turn up any animosity towards Tomassi personally.
So, again, you are speculating on a motive without producing any
actual evidence of a motive.

> > If you are going
> >to assert that wealthy Jewish merchants suddenly developed an
> >irrational hatred for Tomassi, I expect you are able to detail the
> >particular circumstances that led to this hatred.
> Wealth prohibits a person from committing crime?  Is that your new
> thesis?  

Wealth does not prevent a person from committing a crime.  Even
wealthy people commit crimes of passion.  But that is hardly evidence
that these particular wealthy people were motivated by passion as you
have claimed is factually true of them.

Quite evidently, you are not able to detail the particular
circumstances that led to this hatred.

> >Vague gestures at the Talmud are not sufficient.
> I wasn't aware that I have ever been vague when it comes to Talmud
> assessment.  

You were not assessing the Talmud.  You offered the hatred supposedly
evidenced in the Talmud generally as evidence that these particular
"Talmudists" were thus motivated to commit a particular crime of
passion.  If this is your evidence, then you are making the
presumption that all Jews harbour a murderous hatred of Christians.

I'll ask again: do you have any evidence at all that the suspects in
the Damascus case murdered Father Tomassi because they hated him for
trying to convert Jews to Christianity?

- --
 John Morris                                <John.Mor...@UAlberta.CA>
 at University of Alberta  <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBQFoGxTfbIykA6SysEQIQ4QCgnVbBaRPIba91YrD1clozG/IRm3wAoMEf
ZWBlrwaT2gq1b0TQkRxgkkfS
=QRAo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
John Morris  
View profile  
 More options Mar 18 2004, 4:19 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: John Morris <John.Mor...@UAlberta.CA>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:19:06 GMT
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 4:19 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <20040318145601.12281.00001...@mb-m02.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 18 Mar 2004 19:56:01 GMT, debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:

Yes, especially your empty speculations as to motives.

> >And why are you dismissing ritual murder when the same torture
> >sessions that supposedly revealed the single piece of physical
> >evidence in the case also revealed that the motive was ritual
> >murder?
> That is a matter of interpretation.  I don't happen to accept that
> inference.  

It is not a matter of interpretation.  The torturers concluded that
the motive for the crime was ritual.  That is not an interpretation:
it is what they actually concluded.  In the same torture sessions,
one of the accused identified the location of your single piece of
physical evidence.  That is not an interpretation.  In fcat, your
whole case is based upon the factual truth that one of the tortured
identified the location.  There is no inference for you to accept
here.

The inference you cannot accept is that if *all* but one piece of
evidence is tainted, we have good grounds for inferring that the one
piece of evidence is also tainted.

> I view this as a simple hate crime, as I have already stated.

And you will undoubtedly keep stating it.  But you will not produce
any evidence to support your claim of fact as to their motives.

> >> You have already effectively dismissed simple robbery as a
> >> motive, unless the object of their murderous desire was his
> >> biretta.  
> >In fact, I have dismissed the entire notion that the Jews accused
> >of the murder were actually guilty.
> Why do you people incessantly jabber on about THE Jews?  It is
> always THE JEWS with you people?  Is this a Jungian example of
> collective guilt complex or what?  What is this manifest paranoia
> which all you people seem to share in this forum - The 18 million
> Musketeers complex?  An accusation against one or 2 is an
> accusation against ALL?  Such reactions appear to be based upon
> sheer hysteria.  It is most likely the residual effect of Caiaphas'
> curse on the Jewish people...always plaqued by feelings of being
> hounded, always paranoid...The first to GIVE offense and the first
> to TAKE offense...  

I didn't jabber on about "the Jews."  I made a simple reference to
"the Jews accused of the murder."  It is your reaction that is
entirely unwarranted and justly characterized as hysterical.

> >I've done so on a much broader
> >consideration of the evidence and the circumstances of the case
> >than your fetishizing one single piece of dubious physical
> >evidence.
> I see nothing dubious about it, Mr. Morris.  As I see it, your wild
> speculations and rehashed hearsay 'evidence' aren't worth serious
> consideration.

So now you are saying that the torture sessions may not have
happened, that they are merely hearsay?  Are you now saying that it's
just hearsay that the accused recanted as soon as soon as they were
free from their torturers?  Is it just hearsay hat sixty Jewish
schoolboys were kidnapped and held until the accused agreed to
cooperate with their tortureers?  Is it just hearsay that witnesses
were tortured to death?

>  A priest was murdered and the available evidence all points to
> the conclusion that a few fanatic Jews were behind it.

Only a single piece of evidence to points to the conclusion that the
accused were guilty.

>  God forbid that you
> should ever declare a Jew guilty of any crime, right?

I have no trouble declaring Jews guilty of crimes.  David Berkowitz
was a serial killer.  Bernard Clarke assaulted Rudolph Hoess.  The
guys who poisoned the bread at the Nuremberg PoW camp after the war
were criminals.  The rabbis convicted of child molestation are
criminals.

But I do have trouble declaring these Jews guilty of crimes when
every single piece of evidence without exception was obtained by
torture.

> >Now, what is the evidence upon which you base the conclusion that
> >the murder was a hate crime?
> Already posted.  This thread is at an end.

No such evidence has been posted.

- --
 John Morris                                <John.Mor...@UAlberta.CA>
 at University of Alberta  <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBQFoSTjfbIykA6SysEQJO1wCgzyaDY2a+anfEAyQTiMi4RaZqLtQAoKsg
lHxKPR9vSMZpkePj4eyPzxfe
=vK9v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Debunks2005  
View profile  
 More options Mar 18 2004, 4:24 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005)
Date: 18 Mar 2004 21:23:39 GMT
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

I can think of no other motive for his murder, can you?  Whereas the available
evidence in this case convinces me that a few hateful Jews were responsible for
Father's death, it seems to me that you seek to exculpate them.  Just try and
'assume' for a moment, that a few Jews 'are' guilty of his murder, what do you
suppose the motive might have been, hypothetically speaking, of course.  If
this premise be granted, I don't see where any other motive is worthy of
serious consideration.

>>  You are, of course,
>> free to disagree with my assessment and post your reasons for doing
>> so, and you have in fact already done so.  That being said, don't
>> you think it time to move along now?
>No.  You have made a new assertion.  

I don't know whether it is 'new' or not, as I think it was quite evident from
my past posts on this topic that hatred was the driving force which motivated
Father's murderers.  However, the term 'hate crime' is a recent politically
correct innovation, and so that designation is what you are now calling a 'new
assertion.'   It is simply a matter of classification and terminology.

> You have asserted that it is a
>fact that Father Tomassi's murder was a hate crime.  What is your
>evidence to support that claim of fact?

Haven't I already presented that evidence and my reasons for drawing this
particular conclusion?

> >Father Tomassi was a physician who came regularly to minister to
>> >the sick in the Jewish Quarte

>> With no intent upon conversion?  I think not.
>Mere speculation, Joe.

He was a traditional Catholic priest, Mr. Morris.  Now it may be that your
understanding of this concept prevents you from certain perceptions which would
be immediately apparent to traditional Roman Catholics.   Father Isacc Jogues
ministered to the Iroquois, too, but always with the objective of conversion in
mind.  

> Your speculations are not evidence in support
>of your claim of fact that Father Tomassi's murder was a hate crime.

I hardly view this as a speculative matter, Mr. Morris.  It is common sense
which you appear to be tossing out the window with your 'criticisms', such as
they are.

> > It is considered an act of supreme
>> >charity not only by Christians, but also by Jews.
>> Apparently some of those Jews were resentful of his solicititude.
>What the torture of the suspects "apparently" turned up was that they
>bled Father Tomassi for ritual purposes.

I am unconcerned with that aspect of the case.  

>Not only did the torturers
>"apparently" find some bone fragments and a shred of cloth, the
>torture sessions also "apparently" led them to a vial Tomassi's
>blood.

That may be, but the vial of blood was not discovered at the same location as
the bone fragments and the biretta, correct? Unfortunately, there was no such
forensic process as DNA testing in those days, so we shall never know just what
it was which was found or to whom or what it belonged to.  I am not going to
second guess what ensued after the primary evidence had already been revealed
by one of the accused and then discovered right where he said it would be
found.  Yes, that is the strength of my case and that is what convinces me that
at least one of the suspects was guilty as accused.

>But the torture sessions that you rely upon for your single shred of
>evidence did not turn up any animosity towards Tomassi personally.

That is rather irrelevant.  The way it seems to me, the plotters reasoned much
as did Caiaphas centuries ago.  Better that one man die than the entire
community be led astray, and so on and so forth.  It seems to me that this is
the sort of logic which motivated Father's murderers.  And the single shred of
evidence upon which I rely is a most 'powerful and convincing' piece of
evidence.  More so than the idle speculation which has been posted here by
people like Mr. Mathews and Roger.

>So, again, you are speculating on a motive without producing any
>actual evidence of a motive.

As I said earlier, a certain amount of speculation is unavoidable in this
instance.  We know Father was murdered.  We know that one of the tortured
suspects provided accurate information which led to his remains being
discovered exactly where he said they would be discovered.   As to the motive,
we have to resort to logic and deduction, and this is what I have done.  And I
believe that the logic is what any reasonable person serving on a jury could
accept on the basis of the given evidence.  If you can think of a better
motive, please post it for purposes of discussion.

> If you are going
>> >to assert that wealthy Jewish merchants suddenly developed an
>> >irrational hatred for Tomassi, I expect you are able to detail the
>> >particular circumstances that led to this hatred.

>> Wealth prohibits a person from committing crime?  Is that your new
>> thesis?  

>Wealth does not prevent a person from committing a crime.

Thank you.

>Even
>wealthy people commit crimes of passion.  

Only crimes of passion?  I think not.

> But that is hardly evidence
>that these particular wealthy people were motivated by passion as you
>have claimed is factually true of them.

I suggested that inculcated hatred (the same sort of Talmudic style hatred
which preceded the persecution of the Christian saints and the same sort of
hatred which led to a dagger being plunged into Spinoza's back by fanatical
Yeshiva students) and envy is what motivated them.  That is all. And it seems
to be a reasonable conclusion.

>Quite evidently, you are not able to detail the particular
>circumstances that led to this hatred.

Why do they need to be detailed?  Obviously all the details were never filled
in.  Perhaps this is an excellent opportunity to embark upon a new research
project.

> >Vague gestures at the Talmud are not sufficient.

>> I wasn't aware that I have ever been vague when it comes to Talmud
>> assessment.  

>You were not assessing the Talmud.  You offered the hatred supposedly
>evidenced in the Talmud generally as evidence that these particular
>"Talmudists" were thus motivated to commit a particular crime of
>passion.

I find that to be a reasonable assessment, based upon the available evidence.

>If this is your evidence, then you are making the
>presumption that all Jews harbour a murderous hatred of Christians.

No, that inference does not logically follow at all, Mr. Morris.  I have never
made such a claim and never shall.  But you are intelligent enough to
comprehend the differences here...they are not subtle at all.

>'ll ask again: do you have any evidence at all that the suspects in
>the Damascus case murdered Father Tomassi because they hated him for
>trying to convert Jews to Christianity?

All the suspects were not guilty, Mr. Morris.  Would you care to rephrase your
question?

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 18 2004, 4:26 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doct...@localnet.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:26:10 -0500
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

CUE Bellinger producing a clickable pair of JPEG/GIF pics showing the
[purported] 'remains' of the Father Tomasi 'biretta' in a protective
plastic baggie marked "EVIDENCE" --and-- what additionally purports to
be the outline [separate JPEG/GIF] of a discernible fingerprint ridge
[!] or indeed fingerprintS ridges [!] o a fragmentary piece of the
biretta belonging to one or more of the suspected culprits!

How, you ask, can Joe discern such print ridge(s) from, hey, either
Father Tomasi himself or the alleged 'Talmudist' culprit(s) responsible,
per Joe, of Father Tomasi's demise? Ahhhhhh, well now, that's easy Joe
may counter forthwith as the 'culprit' fingerprint(s) ridge remains
contain, per Joe of course, long surviving print 'cling-residue', if you
will, of a 'particular' WINE molecule used exclusively during the era by
the 'Talmudists' during Purim. And Passover!

As Joe explains in a working article [according to my spies] which will
appear at the IHR website 'in due course' , to wit, "The evidence is
quite conclusive if one examines the photos and the slide presentation
showing the tell-tale wine molecules imbedded within the print
crustations taken from Father's biretta! Certainly the Talmudists had
both motive and opportunity to murder Father Tomasi and their own
Talmudic mandated ritual(s) of which I am a known authority serves to
convict them! In fact, in another fragmentary piece of Father's biretta,
and this from a very reliable revisionist source, there is a distinct
'Hebrew character' [!] on what was originally the leather lining of the
biretta and my irrefutable source informs me that the character would
constitute an analogous hecksher, if you will, that the biretta had been
examined by further 'Talmudists'  and held in their possession until I
came into possession of what was left of the original biretta ... via an
Ebay auction!

Thereby, full authentication of the biretta having ben made by Mr. Fred
Leuchter using various techniques he had developed 'in the field' [!]
and applied towards biretta examination and authenticity analysis.
Naturally, and for purposes of any critics, Mr. Leuchter was entitled to
a 'professional fee' for his services but then when an expert is called
on for his/her 'objective' [!] findings, it is certainly not uncommon
that they be paid beforehand!"

There you have it!

Doc Tony
;-)


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Debunks2005  
View profile  
 More options Mar 18 2004, 4:39 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005)
Date: 18 Mar 2004 21:39:13 GMT
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Of course, with your prescient knowledge, you are able to solve the case on
that basis alone, right, Tony?  You sound more and more like a case of sour
grapes every day.  Are you still smarting over that exchange pertaining to the
staged atrocity photo in Goldhakenkreuz's book?

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Debunks2005  
View profile  
 More options Mar 18 2004, 4:56 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005)
Date: 18 Mar 2004 21:56:28 GMT
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 4:56 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Thanks for your empty opinion.  I don't happen to agree with it, and I doubt
whether any other sane person would either.

>> >And why are you dismissing ritual murder when the same torture
>> >sessions that supposedly revealed the single piece of physical
>> >evidence in the case also revealed that the motive was ritual
>> >murder?

>> That is a matter of interpretation.  I don't happen to accept that
>> inference.  

>It is not a matter of interpretation.

I don't agree with you.

>The torturers concluded that
>the motive for the crime was ritual.

I will repeat:  I am unconcerned with their conclusions.  I base my conclusion
only upon the actual evidence which was presented and discovered in this case.

>That is not an interpretation:

I disagee with you.

>it is what they actually concluded.  In the same torture sessions,

Once again, their conclusions are irrelevant.  Let's just stick with the actual
evidence and we can then draw our own conclusions as to motive.

>one of the accused identified the location of your single piece of
>physical evidence.

There was more than a 'single' piece of evidence.  And even if it were just a
single piece of evidence, the obvious conclusion to be drawn from it would
remain the same.

>In fcat, your
>whole case is based upon the factual truth that one of the tortured
>identified the location.  

Please complete the sentence you began...identified the exact location where
some of Father's remains would be and were in fact found and identified.

> There is no inference for you to accept
>here.

There is in what I just posted above, after having to properly rephrase your
comments.

>The inference you cannot accept is that if *all* but one piece of
>evidence is tainted, we have good grounds for inferring that the one
>piece of evidence is also tainted.

You have given us not ONE solid, credible reason WHY this powerful piece of
evidence should be dismissed.  I reject your claim.

>> I view this as a simple hate crime, as I have already stated.

>And you will undoubtedly keep stating it.

Of course.  Until you or anyone else proves by reason or actual evidence that
my conclusions are unacceptable.

>But you will not produce
>any evidence to support your claim of fact as to their motives.

I feel I have already done that to any unbiased and reasonable person's
satisfaction.

Yes, you did.  You always do.

>I made a simple reference to
>"the Jews accused of the murder."  It is your reaction that is
>entirely unwarranted and justly characterized as hysterical.

Your responses to this forum are only too predictable and in accord with what
most people would describe as a shared agenda with your co-posters, and it
always amounts to an incessant jabbering about 'the Jews' collectively.  An
accusation against one is invariably interpreted as an accusation against
ALL...that appears to be the principle adhered to by the usual apologists here.

> >I've done so on a much broader
>> >consideration of the evidence and the circumstances of the case
>> >than your fetishizing one single piece of dubious physical
>> >evidence.

>> I see nothing dubious about it, Mr. Morris.  As I see it, your wild
>> speculations and rehashed hearsay 'evidence' aren't worth serious
>> consideration.
>So now you are saying that the torture sessions may not have
>happened, that they are merely hearsay?  

Why do you always try and twist what people say in this forum?  The torture
sessions occurred, and vital, damaging evidence provided by one of the accused
led investigators to Father's remains.  That has always been the position I
have advanced in this forum.  It has not changed.

> Are you now saying that it's
>just hearsay that the accused recanted as soon as soon as they were
>free from their torturers?  

Once again, not all the accused were guilty.  I have never maintained that, so
your comment is irrelevant.

>Is it just hearsay hat sixty Jewish
>schoolboys were kidnapped and held until the accused agreed to
>cooperate with their tortureers?

Again, irrelevant to the evidence which was provided by one of the accused.  

>Is it just hearsay that witnesses
>were tortured to death?

Irrelevant.  The focus here is upon Father Tomassi and those who murdered HIM.
You seem to be eager to deflect from that crime.

>>  A priest was murdered and the available evidence all points to
>> the conclusion that a few fanatic Jews were behind it.

>Only a single piece of evidence to points to the conclusion that the
>accused were guilty.

A very powerful and convincing piece of evidence, and it consisted of more than
'one' piece.

>>  God forbid that you
>> should ever declare a Jew guilty of any crime, right?

>I have no trouble declaring Jews guilty of crimes.  David Berkowitz
>was a serial killer.  Bernard Clarke assaulted Rudolph Hoess

Bernard Clarke 'assaulted' Hoess?  I daresay that is an understatement and you
know it.

>  The
>guys who poisoned the bread at the Nuremberg PoW camp after the war
>were criminals.  The rabbis convicted of child molestation are
>criminals.

And the Jews who murdered Father Tomassi are likewise guilty of murder - a hate
crime, in fact.

>But I do have trouble declaring these Jews guilty of crimes when
>every single piece of evidence without exception was obtained by
>torture.

I have no problem accepting the evidence in this case, as the accused was not
psychic.  

>> >Now, what is the evidence upon which you base the conclusion that
>> >the murder was a hate crime?

>> Already posted.  This thread is at an end.

>No such evidence has been posted.

I feel it has.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 18 2004, 5:19 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doct...@localnet.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:19:49 -0500
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 5:19 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

It's amazing to me that your whole gambit in the Tomasi bit [biretta
inclusive] is simply to make yet 'another' winded spiel, a la the
'Passion' thing, and cutting through the smokescreen 'examples' you
proffer ad infinitum, that the Jews, once again, are the 'eternal'
culprits for 'all' that ails the planet. You sound like a rather stuffed
  amalgam of Hoffman, Zundel, Streicher ... and a simply better worded
Kurt Knoll.

 >Are you still smarting over that exchange pertaining to the

> staged atrocity photo in Goldhakenkreuz's book?

That would be, according to you anyway, the 'posed' atrocity pictures,
yes? Those dead and naked Jewish women and children sprawled in that
ditch after an Einsatzgruppen Aktion where you simply can't see 'the
blood' .... much like your Himmler 'murder' assertion as to 'where's the
tell-tale HCL coloring?' ...with ALL the photos in question being black
and white.

Then, when you go down the tubes and sound the fool on that one, and
from what others can logically infer, you go on about the east Euro
source of the Einstazgruppen pics yet fail consistently to answer my
question as to WHY the perpetrators would even wish to make the victims
'pose' --- for what 'purpose' would they do that?  Why create a "POSED"
photographic record in the first place of such a vile atrocity in re the
murder of defenseless women and children? WHY, Joe? WHY have them "POSE"
[!] for such a thing?

Then too, the ...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Debunks2005  
View profile  
 More options Mar 18 2004, 5:46 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005)
Date: 18 Mar 2004 22:45:52 GMT
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Golly, Tony, this sounds like something 'personal' with you.  Sorry, but I have
asked to be removed from Mr. Hoffman's 'info-list; due to various differences
of opinion, and Julius Streicher is hardly my idea of a positive role model for
anyone, as a matter of fact you don't appear to be much better than he the way
you are constantly attacking people who disagree with your interpretations of
the holocaust here in this forum...as to Mr. Zundel, I don't think the man
should be subjected to the miserable treatment he has endured at the hands of
his persecutors for a year now, but of course you see ...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 18 2004, 7:13 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doct...@localnet.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:14:12 -0500
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Mercifully, you respond! Good. And don't take a powder or crap-out on me
[I mean 'other' than your methane-mixed wares] because then 'business'
dries up!

For me, it's a ball! OK...'what you got in the packs'.....so to speak!

[suddenly!]

Bruno: "Isn't that what that 'Gold Hat' guy  said to Fred C. Dobbs?"

Mattews: "Quiet, Joe ...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
John Morris  
View profile  
 More options Mar 18 2004, 8:26 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: John Morris <John.Mor...@UAlberta.CA>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:26:25 GMT
Local: Thurs, Mar 18 2004 8:26 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <20040318165628.03395.00000...@mb-m01.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 18 Mar 2004 21:56:28 GMT, debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:

You doubt whether any sane person would regard your bare assertions
as evidence.  But *I* doubt whether any sane person would mistake you
for an eyewitness, so you must therefore produce evidence in support
of your assertion.

> >> >And why are you dismissing ritual murder when the same torture
> >> >sessions that supposedly revealed the single piece of physical
> >> >evidence in the case also revealed that the motive was ritual
> >> >murder?
> >> That is a matter of interpretation.  I don't happen to accept
> >> that inference.  
> >It is not a matter of interpretation.
> I don't agree with you.

I noticed.

> >The torturers concluded that
> >the motive for the crime was ritual.
> I will repeat:  I am unconcerned with their conclusions.  I base my
> conclusion only upon the actual evidence which was presented and
> discovered in this case.  

But you believe the torturer's claim that he got a truthful,
untainted  statement about the location of the sole piece of physical
evidence even though you don't believe any other claim brought out
under torture.  You don't believe it was a ritual murder.  You appear
not to believe that the vial of blood discovered by the same means
was Father Tomassi's blood taken to be used in a Jewish ritual.  You
don't believe that all of the accused were guilty even though they
all confessed to ritual murder under the same torture.  Yet you
believe that the red cloth was discovered only after the accused
identified its location under torture.

> >That is not an interpretation:
> I disagee with you.
> >it is what they actually concluded.  In the same torture sessions,
> Once again, their conclusions are irrelevant.  Let's just stick
> with the actual evidence and we can then draw our own conclusions
> as to motive.

The actual evidence is this:

  1) the accused were tortured
  2) the first of the accused to confess to killing Father
     Tomassi implicated his neighbours and business rivals and
     then became a participant in torturing the other accused
  3) the others accused admitted under torture that they killed
     Father Tomassi for ritual purposes
  4) the children of the accused were held hostage so that the
     accused would cooperate better with their torturers
  5) exculpatory witnesses were tortured to death
  6) under torture, the accused supposedly led the torturers to
     a scrap of red cloth and some bone fragments
  7) under torture, the accused supposedly led the torturers to
     a vial of blood they said they collected from Father Tomassi
     for ritual purposes.

You accept as evidence only item 6 and ignore the fact that although
one expert identified the bone fragments as human, another identified
them as animal.  You deem it irrelevant that the same torture
sessions that produced the detahs of witnesses and vial of blood and
the false confessions also produced the only piece of evidence you
deem relevant.

One wonders why, and one has not received a satisfactory answer.

> >one of the accused identified the location of your single piece of
> >physical evidence.
> There was more than a 'single' piece of evidence.

Of course not.  There were the false confessions, the murder and
blackmail of witnesses by the authorities, the confessions of ritual
murder, the vial of blood to be used in the ritual.

> And even if it were just a
> single piece of evidence, the obvious conclusion to be drawn from
> it would remain the same.

But you just agreed it's not the only evidence.  Yet you draw a
conclusion about that single piece of evidence which is diametrically
opposed to the conclusion you draw from other evidence: that some of
the confessions were false, that not all of the accused were guilty;
that the accused were not involved in a ritual murder.

> >In fact, your
> >whole case is based upon the factual truth that one of the
> >tortured identified the location.  
> Please complete the sentence you began...identified the exact
> location where some of Father's remains would be and were in fact
> found and identified.  

They also "identified" the exact location of a vial purported to
contain Father Tomassi's blood which they said--and you don't believe
them--they collected from Father Tomassi for use in a blood ritual.

If you believe that they identified the location of the remains
completely unaided by suggestions from their torturer, why don't you
believe that they indentified the vial of blood just as acccurately?

> > There is no inference for you to accept
> >here.
> There is in what I just posted above, after having to properly
> rephrase your comments.

Not to be too nitpicky, but what you said above was that you did not
agree with an inference which I didn't in fact draw.

> >The inference you cannot accept is that if *all* but one piece of
> >evidence is tainted, we have good grounds for inferring that the
> >one piece of evidence is also tainted.
> You have given us not ONE solid, credible reason WHY this powerful
> piece of evidence should be dismissed.  I reject your claim.

Why?  If you believe that they identified the location of the remains
completely unaided by suggestions from their torturer, why don't you
believe that they indentified the vial of blood just as acccurately
and were therefore involved in a ritual murder?

> >> I view this as a simple hate crime, as I have already stated.
> >And you will undoubtedly keep stating it.
> Of course.  Until you or anyone else proves by reason or actual
> evidence that my conclusions are unacceptable.

I've done that.  I've created far and away more than a reasonable
doubt.  And all you've done is handwave it away.  You say it is
irrelevant they they were tortured.  You say it irrelevant that they
were blackmailed into cooperation by the abduction of their children.
 You say it is irrelevant that some of them gave false confessions.
You say it is irrelevant that they confessed to ritual murder.  You
say that it is irrelvant that one expert identified the bone
fragmenst as animal bones.  You say it is irrelevant that the vial of
blood was discovered in EXACTLY the same way as the scrap of cloth
and the bone fragments.

But that's all you've done is say it.  It's time for you to prove by
reason or actual evidence that the discovery of the scrap of cloth
and the bone fragments is the only relevant evidence.

> >But you will not produce
> >any evidence to support your claim of fact as to their motives.
> I feel I have already done that to any unbiased and reasonable
> person's satisfaction.

Oh, do you?  Then perhaps you will answer the evidence with something
other than handwaving.

...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Debunks2005  
View profile  
 More options Mar 19 2004, 3:36 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005)
Date: 19 Mar 2004 20:35:48 GMT
Local: Fri, Mar 19 2004 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

What 'bare assertion' is that, Mr. Morris?  That one of the tortured gave
information which led to the discovery of Father's remains, which were
positively identified by his assistant?  Repeating your mantra is not going to
change this fact.  Dismiss it if you like, that is your prerogative, but do not
make declarations that the evidence which convinces me of the guilt of a few
hateful Jews in this sordid affair is based on 'bare assertions.'

>But *I* doubt whether any sane person would mistake you
>for an eyewitness, so you must therefore produce evidence in support
>of your assertion.

That information has already been produced in this forum many times.  I see no
point in discussing this particular point any further.  Let's leave it to the
lurkers to work out for themselves.

How is that relevant to the fact that one of them had intimate details as to
where Father's remains could be and were in fact located?  I never claimed they
were 'all' guilty, did I?  It could be that a couple more were, but simply did
not break under the torture, or it could be that the man who broke happened to
be the only one caught in the investigator's net.  I have no further
information to go on other than what has been posted.  I do not recall if he
implicated others or named accomplices.

>You don't believe it was a ritual murder.  

No, I have already said that.

>You appear
>not to believe that the vial of blood discovered by the same means
>was Father Tomassi's blood taken to be used in a Jewish ritual.

I am highly skeptical of that claim, yes, especially in view of the fact that I
consider this crime to be motivated solely by hate and jealousy.  I don't know
'what' or 'whose' blood was supposedly found in that vial.

>You
>don't believe that all of the accused were guilty even though they
>all confessed to ritual murder under the same torture.

This is again irrelevant.  Some may have been involved and some may not, and
probably were not, but why do you keep avoiding the fact that at least ONE of
them correctly provided information which could only have been known to the
perpetrators?

>Yet you
>believe that the red cloth was discovered only after the accused
>identified its location under torture.

It "WAS" discovered only after one of the accused identified its location.  We
are regularly torturing Arabs at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan in order
to extract information from them...and this at the instigation of Talmudists
like Perle, Wolfowitz, and Dershowitz.  Like I have said, they are the first to
'take' umbrage and the first to give it.

Can you name them?

>  6) under torture, the accused supposedly led the torturers to
>     a scrap of red cloth and some bone fragments

Not supposedly.  It is a FACT.

>  7) under torture, the accused supposedly led the torturers to
>     a vial of blood they said they collected from Father Tomassi
>     for ritual purposes.

Again, we have no idea as to the origin of this blood which was found.  

>You accept as evidence only item 6 and ignore the fact that although
>one expert identified the bone fragments as human, another identified
>them as animal.  

Father's hat was positively identified.  That is enough for me.  Put two and
two together, and it is quite clear that the bone fragments belonged to Father
just as surely as Jeffrey Dahmer stored human body parts in his refrigerator.

>You deem it irrelevant that the same torture
>sessions that produced the detahs of witnesses and vial of blood and
>the false confessions also produced the only piece of evidence you
>deem relevant.

The origin of the blood has not been established and is open to question.  We
do not know from whom it was taken or the purpose behind it.

>One wonders why, and one has not received a satisfactory answer.

One can wonder all they like, but I have posted my answers.

>> >one of the accused identified the location of your single piece of
>> >physical evidence.

>> There was more than a 'single' piece of evidence.
>Of course not

WRONG.  There was 'more' than a single piece of evidence, which YOU just tried
to contest above.  You will have to do much better than this, Mr. Morris, if
you expect to win Talmudist apologist of the year award.

> There were the false confessions,

There were false confessions, and one TRUE confession, and most likely others
were involved but simply did not break, or may even have died in the process.
Nevertheless I do not approve of torture in order to extract confessions.

>the murder and
>blackmail of witnesses by the authorities,

Or the bribery of ...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Debunks2005  
View profile  
 More options Mar 19 2004, 4:04 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005)
Date: 19 Mar 2004 21:04:08 GMT
Local: Fri, Mar 19 2004 4:04 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 19 2004, 4:58 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doct...@localnet.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:56:16 -0500
Local: Fri, Mar 19 2004 4:56 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Debunks2005  
View profile  
 More options Mar 20 2004, 1:41 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005)
Date: 20 Mar 2004 18:40:48 GMT
Local: Sat, Mar 20 2004 1:40 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

>Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
>From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" doct...@localnet.com
>Date: 3/19/2004 1:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <405B6C80.1050...@localnet.com

snip to

>To borrow a favorite line from you-know-who, "Amazing. Simply amazing."
>  Well Joe, as I said in another post, facts are rendered including
>utter logic and common sense [with regard to the 'known' mission of the
>Einsatzgruppen]

Which you keep DISTORTING here.  I stand by what was said years ago:  the EG
shot people indiscriminately.  A number of these people were involved in
partisan warfare.  Nazi Germany's policy was one of mass reprisals in any
event, and this policy applied to Gentiles as well as Jews.  Furthermore,
Jewish sources such as Isaac Kowalski, who himself was a member of the Jewish
resistance (or so he claims) has made statements in his books that youngsters
were also enlisted in the work of sabotage and assassination.  So stop
distorting what was written.  Your problem is that you rely on people like Gord
McFee for your information and when I set you straight, you refuse to listen.
That can only be described as an act of irrational pig-headedness on your part.

>and the bottom line, alas, remains that 'you' think
>those Einsatzgruppen women and children victims were "posing" [!]

The photo in question is a blatant FRAUD.  Get used to it.  Holocaust
'eyewitnesses' contradict your statement when they refer to 'geysers of blood'
shooting out of the ground and so on.  When people are shot en masse, Mr.
Lomenzo, they BLEED....profusely.  In this nice sanitized photo there is no a
speck of blood to be seen anywhere.  It is a fraud.

>the
>'why' of your assumption and the 'why' of the perpetrators wishing to
>force victims to 'pose' for an

Where is your proof that these models were 'forced' to pose?  Take a look at
the photo again, and notice how nice and neatly the 'bodies' have all been
arranged for 'aesthetic' purposes.  It is a staged photo, Mr. Lomenzo.
Goldhakenkreuz should take greater pains in the future and be sure to select
photos which are genuine.

>atrocity photo and 'look dead' wholly
>escaping me

I will tell you:  Hollywood does a much better job of staging such scenes than
Ehrenburg's boys, who probably were hampered by a shoestring budget.

>while 'I' believe it's the real and tragic results of
>'known' Einsatzgruppen Aktions and mission within the USSR.

Well this picture you offer as evidence is certainly not reflective of that
'fact.'

>I'd of course mention in passing the 'specific' testimony of both Otto
>Ohlendorf and Erich Bach-Zelewski as to their testimony on the
>'specific' mission of the Einsatzgruppen [which I've cited previously in
>Telford Taylor's book

Which has nothing to do with the staged photo in Goldhagen's book.

>] but then I already know you'll only give me the
>classic "#3 and #5" response on that testimony ... so there it is.

Your analogy is irrelevant, Tony.

snip Mr. Lomenzo's delusional rambling


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 20 2004, 2:50 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doct...@localnet.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:50:28 -0500
Local: Sat, Mar 20 2004 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

OK...I'll play, Joe....'what' people....and WHY....specifically.

> A number of these people

Define 'these people', Joe.

[but then...]

Tom Moran: "Need you ask, Doc?"
Mike Hoffman: "Right!"
Chris Carpenter: ['Begonia' shtick] "Do da' word 'Yids' ring a bell?"
Hoffman: "Thank you, Chris!"
Carpenter: "You got it, bud'!"
Kurt and Werner Knoll: "Die Juden sind unser Unglück!"
Morghus: " 'Unlucky' [!] people indeed!"

Ohhh, you were braying, Joe....

 >were involved in

> partisan warfare.

WHO was, Joe? What kind of 'people' were informed in 'partisan
warfare'??? ...how many of 'these people', Joe .....  ???

> Nazi Germany's policy was one of mass reprisals in any
> event, and this policy applied to Gentiles as well as Jews.

Ahhhhh! Annnnddddddd....

> Furthermore,
> Jewish sources such as Isaac Kowalski, who himself was a member of the Jewish
> resistance (or so he claims) has made statements in his books that youngsters
> were also enlisted in the work of sabotage and assassination.

How many 'youngsters' Joe because I'm thinking of the +/- 1.3 million
JEWISH Einsatzgruppen victims during that era PLUS the 'known' actions
of the Einsatzgruppen in the USSR PLUS the testimony of the
Einsatzgruppen perpetrators stating that mission and 'specifically'
against 'who' !!!

  >So stop

> distorting what was written.  Your problem is that you rely on people like Gord
> McFee for your information and when I set you straight,

Will you get off the McFee bandwagon already? You sound like a broken
record! If you continue to maintain this chronic and habitual bent with
Gord McFee, then bend McFee's ear/eye about it fer crissakes! Not mine!
Is it because Gord keeps making you look the fool via your own wares ?

> you refuse to listen.

The only thing I can 'hear' from you, Joe, is the THUMP as you
perpetually keep hitting the canvas ... every time you show up!
That you wish more 'rounds', well, hey, perhaps you've been hit sooooo
often that you still hear the bells and thus this fact perhaps taps into
your religious fanatic drones!

> That can only be described as an act of irrational pig-headedness on your part.

Joe Bellinger...doing an ad hoc Quasimoto [*Charles Laughton--the best
characterization of same, IMHO]  but addressed to the 'AR' newsgroup
versus any Esmeralda, to wit, "Pull the rope...I can hear the bell!"

>>and the bottom line, alas, remains that 'you' think
>>those Einsatzgruppen women and children victims were "posing" [!]

> The photo in question is a blatant FRAUD.  Get used to it.  Holocaust
> 'eyewitnesses' contradict your statement when they refer to 'geysers of blood'
> shooting out of the ground and so on.

You mean like....Eichmann? He, inter alia, said that you know!

  >When people are shot en masse, Mr.

> Lomenzo, they BLEED....profusely.  In this nice sanitized photo there is no a
> speck of blood to be seen anywhere.  It is a fraud.

Faded...60 years plus old...from a distance...blank and white. And WHY
have an atrocity photo involving, as you say, 'allegedly dead' {!!!???]
women and children "posed" ---  WHY Joe? For WHAT purpose such a photo?

>>the
>>'why' of your assumption and the 'why' of the perpetrators wishing to

>>force victims to 'pose' for an

> Where is your proof that these models were 'forced' to pose?  Take a look at
> the photo again, and notice how nice and neatly the 'bodies' have all been
> arranged for 'aesthetic' purposes.  It is a staged photo, Mr. Lomenzo.
> Goldhakenkreuz should take greater pains in the future and be sure to select
> photos which are genuine.

Readers! A NEW entry from Bellinger....and you saw it here for the first
time to boot! Did you catch it? "MODELS!"

So 'now' we have, per Joe, women and children 'models' suddenly
'willingly'  "posing" for a 'staged' Einsatzgruppen photo. Why would
'anyone' want to 'stage' an atrocity photo? For who(m)? Why?

>>atrocity photo and 'look dead' wholly
>>escaping me

> I will tell you:

Readers! Get ready!

And for what is supposed to be 'revisionist logic' or what DEM once
likened to 'revisionist incisive and thought provoking historical
points' [sic] ....

Let's see an example then.....

> Hollywood does a much better job of staging such scenes than
> Ehrenburg's boys, who probably were hampered by a shoestring budget.

There you have it!

[and then...]

DEM: "Problem?"

>>while 'I' believe it's the real and tragic results of
>>'known' Einsatzgruppen Aktions and mission within the USSR.

> Well this picture you offer as evidence is certainly not reflective of that
> 'fact.'

In 'your' warped view, Joe, and those alleged emails you get in equally
alleged 'support' of same. [cough-cough]

>>I'd of course mention in passing the 'specific' testimony of both Otto
>>Ohlendorf and Erich Bach-Zelewski as to their testimony on the
>>'specific' mission of the Einsatzgruppen [which I've cited previously in
>>Telford Taylor's book

> Which has nothing to do with the staged photo in Goldhagen's book.

It has to do with the 'specific mission' of the Einsatzgruppen in the
USSR! And you know it.

>>] but then I already know you'll only give me the
>>classic "#3 and #5" response on that testimony ... so there it is.

> Your analogy is irrelevant, Tony.

> snip Mr. Lomenzo's delusional rambling

Again Joe, stick to your assumed mantle of roving Usenet Pope-at-Large
sans attribution or portfolio and that St. Pete's net...and try to
DISentangle 'yourself' from its obvious clutches and tight grip in the
process! The smaller albeit also visible 'strings' of the larger strands
inclusive.

Doc Tony

Vangel: "Huh? Strings...strands...wha'?... ."

Kurt: "Ami 'propaganda', mein Primus!"

Vangel : "Ohhhhhh!"

;-)


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Debunks2005  
View profile  
 More options Mar 20 2004, 11:01 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005)
Date: 21 Mar 2004 04:01:37 GMT
Local: Sat, Mar 20 2004 11:01 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Since you are the person repeating their distortions, I hardly need name them
for you.

>> A number of these people

>Define 'these people', Joe.

They are well known to you.

>Ohhh, you were braying, Joe....

I only bray when corresponding with an ass.  They don't seem to understand
anything beyond that.

> >were involved in
>> partisan warfare.
>WHO was, Joe? What kind of 'people' were informed in 'partisan
>warfare'??? ...how many of 'these people', Joe .....  ???

Why don't you refer to Kowalski's numerous books on this subject instead of
asking me?

>> Nazi Germany's policy was one of mass reprisals in any
>> event, and this policy applied to Gentiles as well as Jews.

>Ahhhhh! Annnnddddddd....

And what?

>> Furthermore,
>> Jewish sources such as Isaac Kowalski, who himself was a member of the
>Jewish
>> resistance (or so he claims) has made statements in his books that
>youngsters
>> were also enlisted in the work of sabotage and assassination.
>How many 'youngsters' Joe

Read about it in other source material.   I had to.

>because I'm thinking of the +/- 1.3 million
>JEWISH Einsatzgruppen victims

Who counted them?  None of the figures are accurate as cited.  Could be 1.3
million or could be much much less.

>during that era PLUS the 'known' actions
>of the Einsatzgruppen in the USSR PLUS the testimony of the
>Einsatzgruppen perpetrators stating that mission and 'specifically'
>against 'who' !

Yes, well that opens the door to an entirely new line of questioning which I
have no desire to digress into at the moment.

>>So stop
>> distorting what was written.  Your problem is that you rely on people like
>Gord
>> McFee for your information and when I set you straight,

>Will you get off the McFee bandwagon already?

Mr. McFee is the source of your twisted interpretation of my words, Mr.
Lomenzo.

>You sound like a broken
>record!

And you don't?

>If you continue to maintain this chronic and habitual bent with
>Gord McFee, then bend McFee's ear/eye about it fer crissakes!

Why should I?  He is not the one constantly rehashing that nonsense here at the
moment...you are.

>Not mine!
>Is it because Gord keeps making you look the fool via your own wares ?

That's not the way I see it.

> you refuse to listen.

>The only thing I can 'hear' from you, Joe, is the THUMP as you
>perpetually keep hitting the canvas ... every time you show up!

Your anklebiting does ruffle my feathers one bit, Mr. Lomenzo.  Hadn't you
noticed?  No, of course not, for you are too busy nipping away at my ankles...

>That you wish more 'rounds', well, hey, perhaps you've been hit sooooo
>often that you still hear the bells and thus this fact perhaps taps into
>your religious fanatic drones!

And you say religious believers are the delusional ones?  LOL!

>> That can only be described as an act of irrational pig-headedness on your
>part.
>Joe Bellinger...doing an ad hoc Quasimoto [*Charles Laughton--the best
>characterization of same, IMHO]  but addressed to the 'AR' newsgroup
>versus any Esmeralda, to wit, "Pull the rope...I can hear the bell!"
>>>and the bottom line, alas, remains that 'you' think
>>>those Einsatzgruppen women and children victims were "posing" [!]

> The photo in question is a blatant FRAUD.  Get used to it.  Holocaust
>> 'eyewitnesses' contradict your statement when they refer to 'geysers of
>blood'
>> shooting out of the ground and so on.

>You mean like....Eichmann? He, inter alia, said that you know!

So have others not of the nazi persuasion.

>  >When people are shot en masse, Mr.
>> Lomenzo, they BLEED....profusely.  In this nice sanitized photo there is no
>a
>> speck of blood to be seen anywhere.  It is a fraud.
>Faded...60 years plus old...from a distance...blank and white. And WHY
>have an atrocity photo involving, as you say, 'allegedly dead' {!!!???]
>women and children "posed" ---  WHY Joe? For WHAT purpose such a photo?

I don't know what picture you have been looking at but the one I have is
crystal clear.   Not ONE speck of blood to be seen anywhere...amidst all that
white!  Imagine!  They are all dressed alike!  And not one speck of blood
anywhere.  If Goldhaken had a brain in his head, he would have claimed they
were gassed.

What else can one call them?  The photo is obviously one of Ehrenburg's
propaganda creations.

>So 'now' we have, per Joe, women and children 'models' suddenly
>'willingly'  "posing" for a 'staged' Einsatzgruppen photo. Why would
>'anyone' want to 'stage' an atrocity photo? For who(m)? Why?

When you are able to prove to my and others satisfaction that these people were
all shot to death by providing some visual evidence on the photo that they were
indeed shot, i.e., 'bleeding' from gunshot wounds, then I will concede the
point.  Until then you are left spewing your near hysterical mantra without one
shred of credible evidence.

Whatever, Mr. Lomenzo.

>>>I'd of course mention in passing the 'specific' testimony of both Otto
>>>Ohlendorf and Erich Bach-Zelewski as to their testimony on the
>>>'specific' mission of the Einsatzgruppen [which I've cited previously in
>>>Telford Taylor's book

>> Which has nothing to do with the staged photo in Goldhagen's book.

>It has to do with the 'specific mission' of the Einsatzgruppen in the
>USSR! And you know it.

It has nothing to do with the photo in question and you know it.

>>>] but then I already know you'll only give me the
>>>classic "#3 and #5" response on that testimony ... so there it is.

>> Your analogy is irrelevant, Tony.

>> snip Mr. Lomenzo's delusional rambling
>Again Joe, stick to your assumed mantle of roving Usenet Pope-at-Large
>sans attribution or portfolio and that St. Pete's net...and try to
>DISentangle 'yourself' from its obvious clutches and tight grip in the
>process! The smaller albeit also visible 'strings' of the larger strands

And so Mr. Lomenzo leaves us, whilst still nibbling at my ankles in rage and
despair at not being able to prove whatever point he thought he was proving.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 21 2004, 11:40 am
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doct...@localnet.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:40:08 -0500
Local: Sun, Mar 21 2004 11:40 am
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Rage and despair? More like showing you as the patent babbler whose
'proof' on most anything you try to hawk in AR is a sort of combination
'Burning Bush because I say so' and off the wall wishful gambits. Your
'Hollywood does it all the time' in re Einsatzgruppen actions being,
inter alia, one of the more lame 'proofs' you figure will fly. To whom,
I don't know. I give you the 'known' actions of the Einsatzgruppen
during that era with regard to the known murder of Jewish men, women and
children and you counter with 'Hollywood.'

I cite a specific Einsatzgruppen picture of an Einsatzgruppen atrocity
doing, in fact, what they were known to do as a matter of course,
[*Recall even Irving citing EZ actions the result of "thugs and
murderers" [sic] ] and you say in the cited picture that 'models'
willingly 'posed' for it... in effect, they 'posed looking dead' BUT the
utterly crucial question you avoid like the plague: WHY would that be
done? For what reason or motive? Not to mention that not one of these
women ...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Debunks2005  
View profile  
 More options Mar 21 2004, 1:42 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005)
Date: 21 Mar 2004 18:41:51 GMT
Local: Sun, Mar 21 2004 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

I don't know what else to call it.  You'll never reach those grapes by gnawing
at my ankles.

> More like showing you as the patent babbler

I think that word more more aptly describes your usual offerings here than
mine.

>whose
>'proof' on most anything you try to hawk in AR is a sort of combination
>'Burning Bush because I say so' and off the wall wishful gambits.

Really?  I had always thought my posts were more the product of logical
assessment.  On
...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo  
View profile  
 More options Mar 21 2004, 2:47 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doct...@localnet.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:47:38 -0500
Local: Sun, Mar 21 2004 2:47 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Debunks2005  
View profile  
 More options Mar 22 2004, 8:17 pm
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: debunks2...@aol.com (Debunks2005)
Date: 23 Mar 2004 01:16:23 GMT
Local: Mon, Mar 22 2004 8:16 pm
Subject: Re: Bellinger on the Damascus Case
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

...

read more »


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages < Older 
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google