Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

This board is open for all subject matters. Post information and discussion materials about open-debate and censorship on other boards (including this one) here. Memory Hole 2 is a RODOH subforum for alternate perspectives.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29284
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:46 pm
Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:43 pm
Werd wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:31 pm
Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:35 am
They are all examples of how deniers have dodged evidencing what happened.
Show me where all the Jews went, or I win by default. Non sequitor.
It is logical that if event A is evidenced and event B is not, and they are the only two events possible, then event A happened.

A - Mass gassing is evidenced.
B - Mass daily departures from the camps and kremas is not.

Neither A nor B could have happened without leaving evidence.

Why should I believe your claim when you cannot evidence it?

You have no answer for that and that is why denier run forums have to limit the debate to protect their beliefs. That is why I win, because I can evidence A and you cannot evidence B.
And as usual, you still act like there is sufficient documentary and physical evidence for proof of A.
You ignore and dismiss most of the evidence for A and then you, as you have just done right now, completely ignore that you have no evidence at all, from any source, of B.

That is why you dodge my argument of; it is logical that if event A is evidenced and event B is not, and they are the only two events possible, then event A happened.
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.


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


Turnagain
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
That is hyperbole.
No, that isn't hyperbole. That's what Rajchman said.
A hermetic seal makes sense on doors and vents to stop leaking.
Bullshit! Witnesses said that the hermetically sealed gas chambers also functioned as vacuum chambers.
No. A vacuum chamber was merely a rumour and hearsay.
Bullshit! Eyewitnesses claimed that the chambers functioned as vacuum chambers.
It is your inability to provide a justification why this forum is now protected from open debate.
No, you got booted off the discussion forum for such as the above bullshit you posted. That and your repetitive claims of nonexistent "evidence" and your continual whine of, "Where did they gooooo?".

Werd
Posts: 10201
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:57 pm
I have answered you in the past. You pretend that I have not...
Nessie's entire response which is ALL about the AR camps, simply DOESN'T mention a certain camp in Poland. It's almost like we have another quasi-revisionist in our midst now. :lol:
Even quasi-revisionist David Cole/Stein who holds steadfast to the AR camp murder theory admitted that the revisionists won Auschwitz.
Nessie also says:
You ignore and dismiss most of the evidence for A
WHAT EVIDENCE??? LOL.

As already seen, Pressac, Markiewicz, Green and others have been caught for distortion of documents, manipulation of gas/brick/mortar Auschwitz samples, Tauber's impossible multiple corpse incineration times, etc.
Last edited by Werd on Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29284
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Nessie »

I will be proved correct when DC moves this thread to Siberian Exile. He needs to protect denial from being asked to evidence its claims.
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.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29284
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:01 pm
Nessie wrote:
That is hyperbole.
No, that isn't hyperbole. That's what Rajchman said.
You just show that you do not understand hyperbole.
A hermetic seal makes sense on doors and vents to stop leaking.
Bullshit! Witnesses said that the hermetically sealed gas chambers also functioned as vacuum chambers.
No witness said he saw that happen.
No. A vacuum chamber was merely a rumour and hearsay.
Bullshit! Eyewitnesses claimed that the chambers functioned as vacuum chambers.
They claimed it, but none said they saw it actually happen. Learn to tell the difference.
It is your inability to provide a justification why this forum is now protected from open debate.
No, you got booted off the discussion forum for such as the above bullshit you posted. That and your repetitive claims of nonexistent "evidence" and your continual whine of, "Where did they gooooo?".
No, my posting was restricted because you cannot evidence what did happen and you cannot justify why anyone should believe what cannot be evidenced.
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.

Werd
Posts: 10201
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Werd »

I think with the library of lies and distortions of you that I have collected, Depth Check will be comfortable just leaving this topic right here in Memory Hole. Besides, most of the links I have collected lead to Siberian Exile anyway. I'm sure this topic will stay in Memory Hole. As long as we don't engage in futility and requote and repost every damn debate that I already linked to, that you already lost.

OOOHHH. I GET IT NOW. YOU WANTED US TO REQUOTE AND REPASTE EVERYTHING SO THAT IT WOULD GET MOVED AND THEN YOU COULD PLAY VICTIM, RIGHT? :lol:

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29284
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:01 pm
Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:57 pm
I have answered you in the past. You pretend that I have not...
Nessie's entire response which is ALL about the AR camps, simply DOESN'T mention a certain camp in Poland. It's almost like we have another quasi-revisionist in our midst now. :lol:
My points also apply to the kremas at A-B. You have no evidence those sent there then left. That is why you dodged acknowledging what evidence would exist, if mass transports back out of the camps had happened.
Even quasi-revisionist David Cole/Stein who holds steadfast to the AR camp murder theory admitted that the revisionists won Auschwitz.
Nessie also says:
You ignore and dismiss most of the evidence for A
WHAT EVIDENCE??? LOL.
The evidence for gassings you are dismissing as false.
As already seen, Pressac, Markiewicz, Green and others have been caught for distortion of documents, manipulation of gas/brick/mortar Auschwitz samples, Tauber's impossible multiple corpse incineration times, etc.
You dodge having no evidence at all for the one and only alternative to gassings.
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.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29284
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:06 pm
I think with the library of lies and distortions of you that I have collected, Depth Check will be comfortable just leaving this topic right here in Memory Hole. Besides, most of the links I have collected lead to Siberian Exile anyway. I'm sure this topic will stay in Memory Hole. As long as we don't engage in futility and requote and repost every damn debate that I already linked to, that you already lost.

OOOHHH. I GET IT NOW. YOU WANTED US TO REQUOTE AND REPASTE EVERYTHING SO THAT IT WOULD GET MOVED AND THEN YOU COULD PLAY VICTIM, RIGHT? :lol:
Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?
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.

Werd
Posts: 10201
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:10 pm
My points also apply to the kremas at A-B. You have no evidence those sent there then left. That is why you dodged acknowledging what evidence would exist, if mass transports back out of the camps had happened.
And we're back to this again.

viewtopic.php?p=145471#p145471
Middle of the post. Mattogno quote about the Hungarians and how the photos don't actually end up proving what Nessie claims they do. Jews are not on their way to the gas chambers. In fact they're not even in the vicinity! So the arguments of "photographs prove it" is washed away again.

I've already admitted in the past that tracking Jews is a tough one for revisionists. I already said I'm fine with agnosticism. But I also don't get to conclude that just because revisionists can't find Jews, that somehow that washes away or excuses all the problems that Mattogno and Rudolf have pointed out about many others. This is what Nessie is attempting to do, is somehow win the debate a-priori. And that's just wrong.
As already seen, Pressac, Markiewicz, Green and others have been caught for distortion of documents, manipulation of gas/brick/mortar Auschwitz samples, Tauber's impossible multiple corpse incineration times, etc.
You dodge having no evidence at all...
...that Mattogno and Rudolf are correct in their critiques? Well we shall let the interested reader decide for himself when he goes through all my links. We shall see what the interested reader thinks about Mattogno destroying Pressac's "criminal traces" and Rudolf completely destroying the counter arguments of Green and the non-arguments and evasions of Markiewicz.
Last edited by Werd on Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Werd
Posts: 10201
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:10 pm
Werd wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:06 pm
I think with the library of lies and distortions of you that I have collected, Depth Check will be comfortable just leaving this topic right here in Memory Hole. Besides, most of the links I have collected lead to Siberian Exile anyway. I'm sure this topic will stay in Memory Hole. As long as we don't engage in futility and requote and repost every damn debate that I already linked to, that you already lost.

OOOHHH. I GET IT NOW. YOU WANTED US TO REQUOTE AND REPASTE EVERYTHING SO THAT IT WOULD GET MOVED AND THEN YOU COULD PLAY VICTIM, RIGHT? :lol:
Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?
:roll:

Note: I'm only repeating myself because Nessie has devolved into repeating himself FIRST. It's standard operating procedures for trolls. I am not to blame. He started it. So here we go once again. Notice how the first time around, he ignored how he was PROVEN WRONG when he acted like revisionists have never had any games played with them when they have attempted to access certain archives or go on missions to search for things.
Werd wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:34 pm
Nessie wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 8:06 pm
Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?
I think you're referring to the holocaust claims since it's illegal to be a revisionist and publicly state your views about lack of gas chambers, a final solution plan, etc without going to jail or getting fined in many European countries and Canada and Australia. We see what cowardice the other side has when journalists like David Baddiel, won't dare mention the big dogs of revisionism and instead pick on bloggers.
viewtopic.php?p=165976#p165976
And
Werd wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:31 pm
Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:49 am
Denial has been made illegal is some countries, because of that lack of evidence. Your inability to provide evidence from witnesses, documents, physical items, forensics and other sources of what did happen and the subsequent mass departures of people on daily transports to be fed, clothed and accommodated elsewhere, is why your claims are illegal. You are spreading fake, unevidenced history.
No it's because people genuinely fear a murderous fascist regime will creep up again if revisionism is allowed to spread. People who see the validity in many of their arguments unfortunately may be swayed into ALSO THINKING that therefore Hitler was a good guy, that he was independent of the international banker conspiracy, that he wasn't a cog in the wheel (when I think he was and have argued as such, much to the anger of some revisionists on this board like k0nsl). In other words, revisionism was made illegal for a 'greater good' not because it can't withstand scrutiny. :roll:
The "big dogs" of "revisionism" have accessed archives and original sources and they have found no evidence as to what did happen.
Actually many of them have not only been refused access (as shown here), but they have found that others have been lying about the locations of certain documents in an effort to frustrate revisionists (as shown here). In an old Jurgen Graf video at 24 minutes 56 seconds, we find that documents that revisionists want to come back to later when they later return to an archive suddenly end up disappearing. So you're wrong again, jackass.
The denier claim of no gassings without leaving behind any evidence for that, is physically impossible to have happened.
What kind of evidence are you talking about that should be left behind and where would we find it? I really don't understand what you're saying. Examples please? Are you looking for documentary/paper traces of Jews leaving? Because that was likely destroyed as already explained. I mentioned this in the past, and true to style you continue to ignore it.

Re: Is Nessie Destroying RODOH? (May 2017)
Page 30
http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=129412#p129412
The Russian bombing campaign made sure to destroy that kind of evidence.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=82321#p82321
also mentioned here, here, here with full quotation and reproduction.

As I said before, your repeated lying and dodging is what earned you your place...way down here in rodoh's basement. You are not a victim and you are not innocent.
Last edited by Werd on Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests