Jack - be it a video, a report or otherwise, the link Bugsy provided refutes the claims made in said report.

Essentially, the other points are a side issue to the central issue - the reality of these claims, is that Mr Piper does not indeed make the claims you say he does.

His claims appear to be central to your argument in relation to the holocaust. As curator of this museum, he is the most credible proponent you have put forward.

The removal of him from your claims leaves very little by way of credible evidence.

This is the key issue - not the side points, like matters of whether it's a video or report.

As for the white supremacist comment, in that one, you kind of shoot yourself in the foot.

You say "White Supremacists don't hate everybody, they prefer their own race and believe it to be the highest. It appears that that gets up your nose.""

Does this get up your nose?

Quite so, TRTL.

Oh dear Jack, is that a crack in the "calm manner, while the defenders of the status quo get all fired up with disparaging comments etc."?
Must be a message there.

Fact: You mentioned Dr. Piper's comments and provided a link that talks about them. I then found the original video by David Cole in which Dr. Piper appears (the one cited by YOUR link!). It turns out neither you nor your source link were correct in what Dr. Piper actually said.

Fact: I never intended to give the impression that I had read unpublished reports on the Anne Frank diary. Perhaps this was not clear. The actual meaning of what I was trying to say is that there were independent reports on that diary (one by NIOD,Netherlands Institute for War documentation), and that the biro written annotations were not published as part of the original text as they do NOT constitute part of the diary, even though they were catalogued by the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA)(but not counted as part of the original diary). This determination was independently conducted by the Forensic Institute (in the Netherlands) in the mid-1980's. Photos of these loose annotation sheets are included in NIOD’s publication (see The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition, 2003, pages 168 and 170).

So, basically you are also admitting that you have never read source material (or reasonable reproductions of source material) and you never watched that video before, and yet you attribute erroneous statements to a man with actual credibility, presumably by reading a white supremacist website.

You deal in rumours and insinuations and most of your ilk just paraphrase and pretend to quote what was written/ videotaped without reference to the truth.

Here's a tip: if you don;t believe something to be true then you should get close as possible to an original source (or reasonable copy thereof)instead of hanging about reading pamphlets and logsites that support your delusion.

As for the revisions made by Dr. Piper: I accept them. I believe they were made in good faith by a serious researcher interested in the truth. That the 'original' estimate was made in error, I also accept. However, the 4.1 million estimate was provided by the Polish Communist government and not really accepted by many real historians.
http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-09.html

TIP: there are actual citations on that link, perhaps you could do some proper research and find out if they are true? I only suggest this, because they put the lie to the "unassailable truth" of the original figure.

Now the real question is: do you accept the revision? Is his number a real number?

1.1 million dead in one location is not a hoax.

If you do not believe the number, the your question loses meaning because you fall victim to a logical fallacy. This is how your argument then looks:
-A was claimed as an unassailable truth
-A was incorrect and was corrected.
Therefore, the correction of A is also likely to be incorrect.

This doesn't look right to me, but then again I've not had the benefit of your expansive education.

Jack-the-Lad “I have the right to deny the holohoax, you sure get angry when I do so.”

I asked “How would you treat me Jack, as a vociforous opponent of fascism, having 2 Jewish great grandmothers. What could I expect from the political system which you are steadfastly defending by denying that the holocaust happened and which I assume you would like to see running Australia?"

I asked a question which you have avoided answering, simply deflecting onto other things with bombard and bluster.

Btw, I am not angry Jack, simply observing “pig-sticking”.

“I believe in free speech and thought. By your latest post, you clearly don't. You ask what freedoms should be extended to political opponents - same as me; freedom to think and believe what they want, and the freedom to say so.”

Me too. As I said

“Although I politically oppose them, I consider holocaust deniers fully entitled to share the free speech they use to lie about the holocaust.”

I like it when you freely espouse your values. It shows us all what you are. My concern would be what you say in the privacy of your humpy.

“though I haven't stated whether or not Fascism is that particular system. That was just your accusation.”

No it was simply my assumption.

“This subject has proved that a so-called denier can keep going in a calm manner, while the defenders of the status quo get all fired up with disparaging comments etc.”

Hardly, I am conducting an experiment (you may consider yourself the guinea pig).

Yeah well... I can't go beyond the most recent comments from TRTL, Bugsy and Col Rouge. In this case, I think Col's masterful sneer is well deployed.

However, I think Steven's advice is best: ignore him, let him blather on and - as Col cogently suggested - allow us to observe the full extent of this sad fellow's delusions. I find Jack fascinating, I suppose since I don't encounter white supremacist, homophobic holocaust deniers very often in real life.

He doesn't need to be encouraged - in fact, he appears to derive some kind of masochistic pleasure in being beaten up intellectually, poor bugger.

Actually, now that I think of it, this thread is starting to resemble the 'Black Knight' scene from Monty Python's 'Holy Grail'. Our Jack is currently sans a few limbs, but is nonetheless thrashing around wildly bellowing taunts at those who are dimembering him:

" Black Knight: Come on, then! (kicks Arthur again)

Arthur: (on the ground) What?!?

Black Knight: (kicking him again) Have at you!

Arthur: (getting up) You are indeed brave, sir knight, but the fight is mine!

Black Knight: Ohhh, had enough, eh?

Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!

Black Knight: Yes I have!

Arthur: LOOK!

Black Knight: Just a flesh wound! (kicking Arthur again)

Arthur: Look, STOP that!

Black Knight: Chicken! Chicken!

Arthur: Look, I'll have your leg!

(The Black Knight continues his kicking)

Arthur: RIGHT! (He chops off the black knight's leg with his sword)

Black Knight: (hopping) Right! I'll do you for that!

Arthur: You'll *WHAT*?

Black Knight: Come 'ere!

Arthur: (tiring of this) What're you going to do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I'm *INVINCIBLE*!

Arthur: You're a looney....

Black Knight: The Black Knight ALWAYS TRIUMPHS! Have at you!! (hopping around, trying to kick Arthur with his one remaining leg) "

[with numerous exclamation marks from the original script censored by the OLO robot]