The revisionist transit camp thesis.

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
clincher
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:55 am
Location: Bogota
Contact:

Re: The revisionist transit camp thesis.

Post by clincher »

Nessie wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:05 am
The revisionist transit camp thesis involves cherry picking parts of the evidence, ignoring witness evidence in its entirety and it falls down completely due to the lack of transit evidence from TII to anywhere else.
Explain. Why this, u bored? There are multiple threads on exactly the same post. Why not use the discussions in place.

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29694
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The revisionist transit camp thesis.

Post by Nessie »

clincher wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:01 am
Nessie wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:05 am
The revisionist transit camp thesis involves cherry picking parts of the evidence, ignoring witness evidence in its entirety and it falls down completely due to the lack of transit evidence from TII to anywhere else.
Explain. Why this, u bored? There are multiple threads on exactly the same post. Why not use the discussions in place.
The deniers here keep on claiming the AR camps were transit camps. They need reminding that they have never been able to evidence that claim.

In this instance, Werd made the transit camp claim in another thread. To stop that thread going off topic, I invited him to show me his evidence to back up his claim here. He backed down because he has no evidence.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Norm
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The revisionist transit camp thesis.

Post by Norm »

Nessie:
The deniers here keep on claiming the AR camps were transit camps. They need reminding that they have never been able to evidence that claim.

Image

I, _?_ (full legal - VERIFIALBE - name),

am so confident that the Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka II "holocausts" happened - as alleged in orthodox historiography,
and that the "eyewitness" testimony for said "holocausts within the holocaust" - constitutes credible evidence,
and that the investigations of said "holocaust" camps in search of empirical evidence - were valid,
that I am willing to bet Greg Gerdes _?_ (choose one):


1: $ .o6 US

2: $ .60 US

3: $ 6.00 US

4: $ 60.00 US

5: $ 600.00 US

6: $ 6,666.66 US


that I can show him the evidence which proves _?_ (list all that apply):


1: With 100% certainty

2: Beyond a shadow of a doubt

3: With the utmost certainty

4: With the same standard of proof espoused by Michael Shermer and the so-called "Skeptics" Society

5: With the same standard of proof applied in U.S. criminal courts

6: With the same standard of proof applied in U.S. civil courts

7: With the same standard of proof applied in German Federal Republic courts

8: With the same standard of proof applied at Nuremberg


that at _?_ (choose one):

1: Belzec

2: Sobibor

3: Treblinka II


no less than (choose as many as apply):


_?_ people were dead on arrival at the camp.

_?_ people (internees) actually set foot (dead or alive) within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ people were murdered within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ people died by means of poison gas within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ people died by means of a bullet wound received within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ people were buried (as whole corpses) within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ corpses "in a wax-fat transformation" currently lie within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ people were cremated within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ pounds of human cremains were buried within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ pounds of human remains currently lie within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ human teeth currently lie within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ bullets currently lie within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ pits / ditches alleged by the eyewitnesses to have been dug and utilized as burning / cremation - pits / ditches have actually been located / proven to exist within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ of the above said verified eyewitnessed burning / cremation - pits / ditches within the boundary of the camp currently contain human remains.

_?_ pits / ditches alleged by the eyewitnesses to have been dug and utilized as mass graves have actually been located / proven to exist within the boundary of the camp.

_?_ of the above said verified eyewitnessed mass graves within the boundary of the camp currently contain human remains.

_?_ scientific reports detailing the forensic analysis of remains located within the boundary of the camp were completed.


Furthermore, because I want to do all I can to put an end to holocaust denial, I agree to challenge Greg Gerdes to accept this wager no later than _?_/_?_/_?_, and agree that if I refuse to answer a question or get caught lying during our debate - I lose the bet.

As well, I accept and acknowledge that the option of demanding that both sides prove to each other that they have the ways and means to make good on the amount that I chose to bet above is mine - which I _?_ (choose - or - do not choose) to invoke.

Remember:

What kind of self-deceiving coward calls a skeptic of their unsubstantiated allegations a

“denier” - yet is unwilling to bet that they can prove what they so vehemently allege is true?

(One cannot “deny” something that does not exist or that has never been proven to be true.)

http://www.nafcash.com/

Image


What are you waiting for Robessie?

What are you so afraid of?
In some circumstances it can be rationally assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be easily discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of evidence of its occurrence as proof of its non-occurrence.
Such is the case for the fraudulently alleged holocaust mass graves: No graves = No holocaust - simple as that.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests