General discussion on the Holocaust

Something that is clearly not understood about witness evidence is that it is possible for someone to describe something in a way that makes it appear unbelievable, for that witness to be unreliable in their testimony and still be truthful.

For example, the witness descriptions of gassings, mass graves and pyres. What they describe, prima facie, appears unbelievable, that the Germans would do such a thing and the scale of what is described is of a size that is almost unimaginable. The witnesses, who are often describing events from years previously, prove to be unreliable in the way they describe what they saw, giving exaggerated estimations, making obvious mistakes and describing events that cannot have happened as described when taken literally. BUT, there is evidence from sources independent of those witnesses, that back up what they say and corroborate them, such that we know they are being truthful and there were mass gassings, graves and pyres.

Hindus are ceremonially cremating one body at a time, to return the ashes to relatives.
The Nazis were cremating hundreds, even thousands of decomposing bodies at a time, to then bury the cremains, without bothering what state those cremains were in.

It stands to reason that economy of scale, means less wood per body in a mass pyre than an individual one.

Anyone who has ever used a BBQ, understands how the pyre on a grate works. Only you do not.

You have been told that on many occasions, you pretend you have not and then dishonestly accuse me of not tackling your questions.



You have provided no contemporaneous evidence to prove all the witnesses lied. Jewish Sonderkommando, Nazi and local Poles all witnessed in one way or another, months of cremations. You have no evidence they all lied.

Gley said that wood was used to start the pyres, then the bodies would burn themselves. Numerous other witnesses speak to the same thing.



According to your logic, because we do not know how the Mayans built their pyramids, those pyramids do not exist and, if a witness cannot describe how a gun works, they cannot be a truthful witness to a shooting. It does not matter that we do not know how something happened. There are many crimes that we do not now what actually happened, but we do know a crime was committed. It is logical to say that it something is proved by the evidence to have happened, then it was possible. You are unable to counter that logic, so you repeat your mantras.

Nessie wrote:

You've been asked on numerous occasions to show some proof of your claims. You invariably reply that you have "evidence" which corroborates (confirms) the statements given by the alleged witnesses. The fact is that no, you haven't any proof of your claims but you continue to weasel dodge that answer with your mantras about "evidence". That is what gets sent to the "gibberish" department amongst your other weasel dodges.

Nessie wrote:

But not from your spurious "evidence". For example, witness A makes an obviously false statement. You excuse the lie by claiming that the lie was just an "exaggeration, etc.". You then go on to claim that unverified "evidence" confirms the lie that you've just excused. It's a repetitive and tiresome technique.

Nessie wrote:

You take as gospel the unverified statements of people who have a vested interest in the holyhoax. It's like someone declaring that they've just located the archaeological find of the century. When asked to show proof of that claim it's simply ignored. They then strut about claiming that their claim is valid. I'm simply asking for some proof of their claims. Nessie declares that to be unreasonable. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

Nessie spews his usual line of unsupported claptrap.