Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

[Turnagain]

Nessie wrote:

You just show that you do not understand hyperbole.

Uh-huh, "hyperbole" and "exaggerations" and just some "little mistakes". Got it.

No witness said he saw that happen.

Bullshit! You lie.

They claimed it, but none said they saw it actually happen.

Bullshit! None of the witnesses prefaced their claims of a vacuum chamber with "I heard that" they functioned as a vacuum chamber. They simply said that the gas chambers had the air pumped out of them in order to suffocate the victims.

No, my posting was restricted because you cannot evidence what did happen and you cannot justify why anyone should believe what cannot be evidenced.

Your posting privileges were restricted for just such asinine claims as the above.

[been-there]

My points...You have no evidence those sent there then left. That is why you dodged acknowledging what evidence would ... [blah, blah]

And we're back to this again.

...just because revisionists can't find Jews, that [does not] somehow... wash away or excuse all the problems that Mattogno and Rudolf have pointed out...

Give it up, Werd.



.

.

.

.

.

[Werd]

I'll give him an easy one. I'll give him one more chance to answer why he dodged my previously cited evidence of revisionists actually having hard times in archives. He can behave himself and answer directly - possibly with an apology, or we can leave him alone in this topic to wither and die from having no one to talk to.

[Turnagain]

Been-there has a point. Arguing with Nessie is a pointless proposition. The holyhoax happened and any clangers that impede that conclusion are excused as "hyperbole" or "exaggerations" or just a "little mistake".

[Nessie]

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.

Prove they left the camp en-mass. Lots of evidence from witnesses, documents, even photos they arrived en-mass. Why no evidence they left?

I've already admitted in the past that tracking Jews is a tough one for revisionists.

After years, decades, there is no evidence they left. That is despite all the witness interviews and archive searches. There IS NO EVIDENCE.

I already said I'm fine with agnosticism.

Your agnostic approach is illogical and you are unable to rationally justify it.

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.

It is not what I am trying to do. I regularly acknowledge gaps in the evidence, problems with the evidence and a lack of evidence.

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.

No, you dodge that Mattogno and Rudolph and other deniers who have been to A-B and researched what happened there, have failed to any evidence at all, that instead of being gassed, those people left the camp.

[Nessie]

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?

Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

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.

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

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.

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.

Your post ignores my question.

Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

[Nessie]

Nessie wrote:

You just show that you do not understand hyperbole.

Uh-huh, "hyperbole" and "exaggerations" and just some "little mistakes". Got it.

No witness said he saw that happen.

Bullshit! You lie.

They claimed it, but none said they saw it actually happen.

Bullshit! None of the witnesses prefaced their claims of a vacuum chamber with "I heard that" they functioned as a vacuum chamber. They simply said that the gas chambers had the air pumped out of them in order to suffocate the victims.

No, my posting was restricted because you cannot evidence what did happen and you cannot justify why anyone should believe what cannot be evidenced.

Your posting privileges were restricted for just such asinine claims as the above.

It is not an "asinine claim" that you have no eye witness to a gassing. Name, quote and link to the quote of a witness stating that he saw a vacuum in use and exactly what he saw when it happened.

[Turnagain]

Nessie wrote:

Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

It doesn't. That only occurs in your fevered imagination.

[Nessie]

I'll give him an easy one. I'll give him one more chance to answer why he dodged my previously cited evidence of revisionists actually having hard times in archives. He can behave himself and answer directly - possibly with an apology, or we can leave him alone in this topic to wither and die from having no one to talk to.

In your link to a claim about access to an archive, I responded to say;

"Nice admission that a lot of time was spent in the archives by deniers. No mention they found nothing to evidence denier beliefs.
All that has happened is that uncredited people cannot go to the archives any more. But there are others prepared to assist who are accredited."

Fact is, deniers have had access and can arrange access and they have not found anything. BRoI is a classic example. He has kept anonymous and has accessed archives. Others have done significant levels of research with primary and secondary sources, such as Eric Hunt and he could not find anything.

It is hardly surprising that known deniers who are there only to find evidence FOR gassings that they can dispute, have difficulties.

That is why you dodge answering the topic's question.

[Nessie]

Nessie wrote:

Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

It doesn't. That only occurs in your fevered imagination.

Let me ask deniers to evidence their claims and challenge them when they cannot.