Werd wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:38 pm
Asher Cohen wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:38 pm
What “good arguments” are ever presented by Holocaust deniers ?
All of the “arguments” are not arguments at all ,, they are just ramblings from uneducated clowns who simply present “arguments” to suit their racist agendas . For example , there are actually people on this forum who like to claim that the Nazis never gassed any Jews , I mean , REALLY ? Can people really be that stupid to deny that historical fact ?
You're new here so I will forgive you for not knowing the past discussions that have happened on this board. Observe!
Mattogno destroys Pressac's criminal traces (Siberian Exile. Be logged in to read it)
Or go read chapters 5 and 4 in Mattogno's book THE REAL CASE FOR AUSCHWITZ free on the internet at holocausthandbooks.com Pressac twisted and destroyed the context of so many documents that he got his hands on. It's not even funny, the anti-history that this chap engaged in!
Many so called documents about allegedly super power ovens in Birkenau that Henry Tauber claimed to burn up 4 corpses in 30 minutes in one oven, turn out to not actually verify what the lie-witnesses claimed.
Ovens were not the only things that so called eyewitnesses lied about. Many lied about flame belching chimneys. A physical impossibility.
The so called underground corpse cellars (leichenkellers) in the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria did NOT actually contain sufficient traces of cyanide in the walls to be consistent with mass gassing operations.
The Chemistry of Auschwitz book free online
The Chemistry of Auschwitz video online
The Chemistry of Auschwitz video transcript
(an anti Markiewicz clip can be read here
Rudolf destroys Green 1
Rudolf destroys Green 2
Rudolf destroys Green 3
Nizkor's apples-oranges argument
Painting the walls nonsense 1
Painting the walls nonsense 2
Butz and Mattogno, two opposing revisionists have done enough work against and in support of each other that while Butz started a good trial, Mattogno followed up on it and in the end, Mattogno's theory came out on top as to what Vergasungskeller actually meant. Non homicidal disinfection procedures designed to clean things and reduce mortality.
While we have seen that some leichenkellers were used for storing corpses, and some were not,
the ones that were not storing a huge amount of corpses, were in fact used to construct emergency showers before the creation of the central sauna in 1944.
Many so called "Special actions" were in fact sanitary measures.
We even had a resident gas chamber monger admit long ago that Birkenau crematoria was expanded with more ovens added not to deal with gassed people, but to burn corpses dead from natural mortality.
Hence ovens in and of themselves mean nothing sinister.
Establishment historians are so shameless that one of them conjured up 100,000 gassed Jews out of thin air.
A group of Polish historians claimed they found 74 documents proving criminal traces such as "special action" or "special treatment" or "sonderkommando." Upon further inspection by Carlo Mattogno, we find that "special" something refers to something innocuous. Often more sanitary measures to reduce mortality. We also find that there was more than one type of sonderkommando in the camp. In other words, not just Jews being forced to empty gas chambers and pluck gold fillings out of corpses. Actual tasks as such as building and maintenance.
http://www.holocausthandbooks.com/index ... ge_id=1011
That's a lot on your plate for now. Perhaps we should expect a response in one or two weeks on at least a couple things brought up? Shall we expect to see quote tags containing large extracts from say Germar's chemistry analysis and then in response, your replies with better counter-arguments also with footnotes from PhD level textbooks? Because right now, Green and Markiewicz have been destroyed by Rudolf.
Or maybe you can explain to us why we should accept the IMT "judicial notice" taken under Article 21 and it's non-necessity to be bound by normal technical rules of evidence (Article 19) that was drawing criticism even back in the 1940's. Apparently, many "certified true copies" were used instead of originals and the flimsiest "affidavit" could be signed by someone (that didn't have to testify to prove themselves) for an ENTIRE CRATE of documents that the defense had little or no time to inspect.
Maybe that's why they allowed such things as bogus documents such as Hoss' signed confession to pass as "evidence" in an allegedly non-kangaroo court.
Werd wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 11, 2020 1:49 pm
5. The Torture of Rudolf Hoss. - Sifting through all the different depositions of Hoss and showing how they contradict each other, the laws of science, other known Auschwitz documents, and also documenting his torture and psychological trauma - thus disqualifying him as credible. The fact that others still try to excuse or minimize his torture, "Oh he wasn't tortured before Nuremberg therefore we can believe him" is stupid. It is also revealed that his captors were playing slippery with his so called confession.
On March 14, 1946 two days after his capture, at 2:30 in the morning, Rudolf Höss signed an 8 page typed text document written in German. The document lacked any form of formatting, headings or printed administrative references and was littered with hand written corrections. The document was also signed by two witnesses – British sergeants and a captain of the 92nd Field Security Section, who certified that the prisoner made his statement voluntarily. The captain dated his signature March 14, but one of the witnessing officers dated it March 15. The document does not bear any indication of place where it was signed. Remember the dates – March 14 or 15.
Then on April 5, 1946 Rudolf Höss signed a 20 pages long affidavit written in English – language he did not speak. He signed the affidavit under oath, even though it was written in the language of his captors, not his own.
In order to hide that Rudolf Höss had signed an affidavit in language he did not speak, the original text was recast and presented as “translation” into English from German. However during the hasty attempt to hide the deception, mistakes were made so the handwritten addition to paragraph 10 was mistakenly added to the end of paragraph 9, rendering the paragraph incomprehensible. It was the forgery that was used before the Nuremberg tribunal.
Carlo Mattogno's book that is dedicated SOLELY to the atrocity reports from the Poles and Soviets was finally completed in Italian last year (after being re-written at least two times according to my email correspondence with Germar Rudolf) and is slated to finally be put into English. Not since The Cremation Furnaces of Auschwitz, has a Mattogno book promised to be so damning!
Wider discussion on the torture and abuse of Hoss in this topic page 62
More examples of defendants being put under incredible pressure and threats.