Eric Hunt debate to come soon?

[katana]

The debate between Eric Hunt and Friedrich Paul Berg can be found here with a link to the free audio.

I've listened to about 2 hours so far and can say it's a bit of a slanging match in quite a few parts. Eric remains quite attached to his new position of "Where did they go, if they weren't gassed?"

Friedrich is obviously exasperated by the whole thing and says things that don't look so good in print but given his personality isn't really something to be concerned about.

Debate with Friedrich Paul Berg (Updated with download link)

http://questioningtheholocaust.com/index.php/2017/02/23/debate-with-friedrich-paul-berg/


Free download –

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7NKRD5j08vYWU5vbnVvUlBEODA

Paid download – Support the moderator who had to put up with Fritz for 4 hours!

http://www.ancreport.com/podcast/holocaust-debate-eric-hunt-vs-fritz-berg/

Fritz got totally rocked in the “debate.” I can’t really call what he did debate – he had to throw at least 50 “childish” insults one after the other. I stuck to the evidence, his entire lack of evidence proving the “Transit camp” theory and his own very illogical claims.

Highlights :

Fritz : Auschwitz was ” a gay old time.” Dr. Mengele “wonderful.”

In the debate you’ll hear exactly why Germar Rudolf, head of Committee for “Open Debate” on the Holocaust begged Fritz not to debate me. The outrageously emotional and insulting words come from Fritz. The logic and evidence I use shatters the denial of gassing and mass shooting by bullets. There is zero evidence to prove the Revisionist “transit camp” theory. Extreme “deniers” know this and retreat to using stock phrases in their comfort zone.

Highlights:

On where did the approximately 750,000 Jews sent to Treblinka, supposedly sent Eastwards (but actually gassed) go?
Fritz : “I don’t know, I don’t care.”

Also
Fritz : Auschwitz was a “gay old time.”
Fritz : Dr. Mengele was “wonderful.”

[Proofs please]

"Where did they go, if they weren't gassed?"

If they were gassed, where are the mass graves?

Where did the millions of Jews of Israel and America come from?

Eric Hunt says there is no evidence of people being transited through the Soviet zone camps. He himself video documented several survivors talking about being personally transited out of these camps in groups of hundreds here at 6:02.



Anne and Margot Frank lived for two months in Auschwitz before being transported to Bergen-Belsen where they both died from typhus in the camp hospital. Elie Wiesel walked freely and voluntarily out of Auschwitz in 1945 with the SS guards (who had been trying and failing to exterminate him for the previous year) on the so-called death march as described in Night.

Yad Vashem documents the fate of Siegmund Rothstein of Berlin, born 16/01/1867 (he eould have been 78 at the end of the war). He was transited out of Berlin via Theresienstadt to Treblinka (1), where it is claimed by Yad Vashem that he was murdered. However, Yad Vashem also records his place of murder as Minsk (2). And yet another Yad Vashem record reports him as "missing" in Minsk (3).

(1) http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.h ... d=11619891
(2) http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.h ... d=10784457
(3) http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.h ... Id=4129032

This report from the British magazine the Spectator, the oldest continuously published magazine in the English language, tells the story of Manfred Alexander, who was transported from Berlin to Minsk and then escaped back to Berlin in 1942.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/ge ... oner-past/

Women, children and the elderly were the least likely to survive the conditions at the end of the war. War, typhus epidemic, mass starvation, full societal collapse. They either died from one of these causes, or survived and emigrated to the USSR, America, or Israel. If any of them were gassed, where are the mass graves?

[Leibniz]

I listened to some of the the debate. As much as I could stand for the time being. Fritz Berg made sense to me, at least the part I listened to, which was mostly about Auschwitz. In fact, I didn't know that he had spoken to people in the German army who had been there.

To tell the truth, I couldn't much bear to listen to Eric. It saddened me to hear him act like one of the brainwashed.

[georgesmiley]

Is that google download file safe to download?

I have listened to nearly half of the debate via another link - I wouldnt call it a debate so far.

[EtienneSC]

It was interesting but added nothing significant to what both authors have already written. Eric Hunt does not strike me as emotionally distraught at all. He has simply internalized the current non-revisionist narrative and patiently expounds it. There is a mildly amusing section at the end when Eric summarizes his views and Fritz Berg appears to be chewing a crispy snack in fury in the background.

[Raikiri]

This whole episode has the air of a comic opera.

Everything came as a whirlwind and was hastily organized without the time to establish a proper debate format with an agreement of the materials to be covered. What positive result did anyone think would come from such a mess? Unstructured, free for all debates on issues like this often degenerate into incoherent back and forth exchanges with one trying to interrupt the other, passions run high and the evidences are subsumed in the general melee. After reading some of the transcript I was just shaking my head.

There is no "believer" that will ever listen to a debate like this and become inspired to question the allied narrative.

Proper debate structures are imperative and need to be rigidly enforced. The debate also needs to be held in a venue where visuals may be extensively employed. There are so many documents/drawings and diagrams of the alleged operation that the uninformed listener with no prior experience or knowledge of the material will be completely baffled by their analysis.

There are many ways to structure a proper debate. One, have a total time allotment divided by two. For example, a three hour debate where each party gets 1.5 hrs to present their case. Two, have time allotments in segments. For example, one party is given 25 minutes to address a subject and the other party is then given 25 minutes to deliver a rebuttal, ect... The time constraints can be whatever we decide.

There is no exterminationist that could endure the relentless onslaught of fact in such a format. There would be nowhere to hide.

Also, no offense, but a hothead like FP Berg is not the one I would want to represent us in a serious debate. Graf, Mattogno, Rudolf, Reynouard, those men would humiliate Hunt six ways to Sunday and twice on Sunday in a proper debate format. It is a shame that Berg took the bait so quickly. This spectacle did not help us one bit, especially in the eyes of those who were already disinclined to receive our information without bias.

I maintain that the situation should have been allowed to simmer down and a proper debate format and venue arranged. E Hunt knows that under such circumstances he would have no chance.

[Moderator]

Well said, Raikiri, hence our Forum guidelines.
M1

[georgesmiley]

Raikiri does a good job in summing up what I have so far heard. I am halfway through - though was told the second half gets better

[katana]

Thanks Raikiri for your constructive comment.

You are right in that there's a comic opera element to the debate, what with the methodical plodding of Eric, versus the "bull out of a gate" style of debate from Fritz.

But what we need to keep in mind is that ideal, or even good, conditions for debate are hard to come by.

Eric threw down the gauntlet and the only qualified taker was Fritz. If Fritz had not come forward, what would have happened? Eric would have declared a victory on his part, for whatever value that has.

So despite all its failings we got to hear Eric give his full opinion on why he has changed his opinion.

That in itself was worth it.

And BTW, it would be helpful if readers here could assist in getting the transcript done, so that it becomes a useful reference tool for future debate.
.
https://katana17.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/anc-report-holocaust-debate-eric-hunt-vs-fritz-berg-2017-transcript/
.
.

[Hektor]

Why doesn't this peculiar 'Eric Hunt Whomever' simply login here and debate? Why does he dodge? He's not banned, none of his posts have been deleted, and if he forgot his password it's very easy to get another one as the webmaster has demonstrated.
...

He claims he was banned on Codoh in the debate with Fritz Berg.
https://archive.org/details/EricHFriedr ... 1+of+4.mp3

[Moderator]

Hektor:

He claims he was banned on Codoh in the debate with Fritz Berg.
https://archive.org/details/EricHFriedr ... 1+of+4.mp3

Eric Hunt can 'claim' whatever he wishes, however, he is not banned here at all. He can post at any time and he knows it.
I suspect he realizes that he will be challenged to actually back-up his new religion and has decided that he cannot, hence his false 'claim' of being "banned".
M1

[Sannhet]

Also, no offense, but a hothead like FP Berg is not the one I would want to represent us in a serious debate. Graf, Mattogno, Rudolf, Reynouard, those men would humiliate Hunt six ways to Sunday and twice on Sunday in a proper debate format.

Has Germar Rudolf ever participated in a 'formal' Holocaust debate? (Audio or video, not text).

[Tommo]

How could any revisionist lose a debate to an exterminationist??

The answers, even if they produce stalemate to Hunt's questioning, such as "show me the transit / show me the bodies" obviously, are obvious.

Why did we put someone like Berg up against a wit like Hunt? That was a bit silly.

IF a Jew can make Revisionists seem like the ones who are crazy, imagine what a turncoat version of Hunt could do.