If asking, even where it is appropriate where the Jews went, if they were not gassed is a mantra to result in a warning, then what about all the mantras about gassings being supposedly physically impossible, boys cycling to the moon, magical excavators etc?
The debates here go round in circles because of people like Turnagain constantly repeating the same old, tired, mantras. Nazgul has a new mantra about Wiernik and one of his alleged plans of TII, which he has posted across multiple threads. How can that be responded to without repetition?
Revisionist is mostly about attempting to prove what did not happen at the AR camps and inside the A-B kremas. The debate gets far more interesting when it is about what supposedly did happen in those places. That is why I repeatedly ask about what happened and where the Jews went.
No wonder you want to avoid discussing your supposed evidence as to what did happen!
The evidence this poster has presented is very weak and far from compelling.
Nothing happened which is the point. If Nessie can provide the exact times and dates of the gassing events with victim names, then perhaps evidence can be gathered showing they were having cups of tea, with biscuits,
Typical denier tactic, asks for more and more detailed evidence of gassings, whilst ignoring the lack of evidence for the only alternative. You are further proving my point that you are trying to disprove gassings, rather than prove what did happen.
It does not matter what anyone thinks or wants to believe. What matters is what is evidenced and what is not evidenced to have happened. The only way to fairly examine history, without bias, is to look for and follow the evidence.
Right, and where is your evidence that the gas chambers as described by Wiernik and Rajchman actually existed?
To save Nessie responding the following can be said on his behalf.
"You have no evidence that contradicts the evidence presented. Typical denier tactic, asks for more and more detailed evidence of gassings, whilst ignoring the lack of evidence for the only alternative. You are further proving my point that you are trying to disprove gassings, rather than prove what did happen.
I refuse to believe the denier claims, because you cannot evidence what actually happened. Unlike you, I follow what is evidenced. You prefer to believe what is not evidenced. Why is that?
What remains, is that there were gas chambers at the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B (and limited gassings elsewhere, such as the T4 action) and no evidence has been found to prove something else happened inside those places."
“Those who play with the devil's toys will be brought by degrees to wield his sword” – R. Buckminster Fuller, 1895
Deny gassings at TII, or claim that gassings need to be revised to some other alternative event that happened inside the camp, and the terms denier and revisionist are appropriate. Either way, there is no evidence from denier/revisionists to back up their claims.
he evidence is that in 1945, excavations found large areas of buried cremains and other remains, up to 7m deep and over an area of at least 2 hectares. In 2014, geophysical surveys found large areas of disturbed ground and a walk over survey found cremains on the surface of the ground. Add that to the witness and other evidence and it proves TII was a death camp. To claim otherwise is illogical and absurd.
If people were euthanized there this would be expected. New stuff please and stop repeating.
The evidence is that c860,000 people were euthanised by mass gassings at TII, and c2.5 million in total at the various camps that had gas chambers.
That is the unevidenced opinion, of someone who exhibits great bias, so it can be dismissed as unimportant. The fair and honest test of truthfulness (which is different from credibility and reliability), is to look at the evidence.
Yes, these statements have been looked at in the context of the evidence and found wanting.
There you go again, with your mantra that the evidence of gassings is lacking.
You think it is lacking, because you use a fallacious methodology for assessing witness evidence and then you gloss over there is no witness at all, to back up the no gassings claims.