Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 3, 2022 17:06:46 GMT
Denier/revisionists like to frame themselves as the defence for the wrongly accused Nazis, so let us pretend you are the defence lawyer for the Nazis at a trial. You accuse each Jewish witness of being a liar, but you present no evidence to back up your claims. Instead, you argue a series of logical fallacies, such as because a witness did not describe a gas chamber that you think would not work, therefore the witness lied.
You produce no documentary or other evidence to back up your defence. You have no alibi. You then claim your Nazi clients have been coerced into lying, but they admit to the gassings and make no mention of being coerced. Do you think the Judge would find the Nazis not guilty of a crime they admit to and is corroborated by the other witnesses as well as documents and physical evidence?
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 3, 2022 17:46:21 GMT
Nessie wrote: First find an impartial judge. At Fedorenko's deportation hearing Czarny testified that blood contained a chemical that rendered it flammable and that was accepted by the court. No perjury charges were ever brought against a holyhoax witness. Not even in the case of the German, on trial for murdering a Jew's brother, pointed out that the supposedly murdered man was sitting in the spectator's section of the courtroom. No perjury charge. The judge scolded the witness claiming he was making it difficult to "hang these pigs". So, find an impartial judge and jury and provide a country where questioning the "facts" of the holyhoax is legal.
The fact that fire is hot isn't a logical fallacy. It's a fact that cremating a cadaver is an endothermic reaction. It's not any kind of fallacy. Your claim that revisionists have nothing but fallacies with which to question witnesses is rank bullshit.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 3, 2022 19:16:33 GMT
Nessie wrote: First find an impartial judge. At Fedorenko's deportation hearing Czarny testified that blood contained a chemical that rendered it flammable and that was accepted by the court. No perjury charges were ever brought against a holyhoax witness. Not even in the case of the German, on trial for murdering a Jew's brother, pointed out that the supposedly murdered man was sitting in the spectator's section of the courtroom. No perjury charge. The judge scolded the witness claiming he was making it difficult to "hang these pigs". So, find an impartial judge and jury and provide a country where questioning the "facts" of the holyhoax is legal.
The fact that fire is hot isn't a logical fallacy. It's a fact that cremating a cadaver is an endothermic reaction. It's not any kind of fallacy. Your claim that revisionists have nothing but fallacies with which to question witnesses is rank bullshit.
If you claim in court that pyres on grates are not physically possible, you will need an expert witness to evidence that claim. Where will you get such a witness from?
|
|
Agandaur
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 137
|
Post by Agandaur on Jan 3, 2022 20:30:16 GMT
Nessie wrote: First find an impartial judge. At Fedorenko's deportation hearing Czarny testified that blood contained a chemical that rendered it flammable and that was accepted by the court. No perjury charges were ever brought against a holyhoax witness. Not even in the case of the German, on trial for murdering a Jew's brother, pointed out that the supposedly murdered man was sitting in the spectator's section of the courtroom. No perjury charge. The judge scolded the witness claiming he was making it difficult to "hang these pigs". So, find an impartial judge and jury and provide a country where questioning the "facts" of the holyhoax is legal.
The fact that fire is hot isn't a logical fallacy. It's a fact that cremating a cadaver is an endothermic reaction. It's not any kind of fallacy. Your claim that revisionists have nothing but fallacies with which to question witnesses is rank bullshit.
If you claim in court that pyres on grates are not physically possible, you will need an expert witness to evidence that claim. Where will you get such a witness from? There are cremation experts.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 4, 2022 8:29:41 GMT
Nessie wrote: First you will have to explain to the judge what you mean by "pyres on grates". That is, bodies placed on a grate over a pyre of wood. There are any number of people who are knowledgeable about cremations. Professors in the field of thermodynamics. Crematory operators. Hindus who have studied the deforestation problems of India due to cremations. People who specialize in the disposal of animal carcasses. No shortage of witnesses.
In an unbiased court you will be stuck with the claims of the alleged witnesses. You won't be able to excuse their statements with your opinions of what they meant. You won't be able to say, "The witness said that the fuel consisted of small twigs the size of toothpicks but that was an exaggeration". There will be immediate objections by the defense to you voicing your opinions of what the witnesses meant.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jan 4, 2022 9:24:55 GMT
That this person STILL hasnโt understood what the word โpyreโ means โ even after you have explained it to him numerous times โ demonstrates that he is not capable of discussion because he can not understand simple word definitions.
1. He can not understand nor can be made to understand simple word meanings. 2. He is not capable of reasonable, intelligent, logical discussion about his โholocaustโ belief. 3. For him โ and many like him โ he approaches the subject as a true and faithful believer in something. 4. He starts discussion believing โit definitely happenedโ without understanding what about โitโ (the holocaust) is actually being questioned. 5. Discussion about cremation or court procedure, or whatever, is not engaged in to discover โwhat actually happenedโ, but to buttress his irrational belief.
.....
|
|
|
Post by ๐๐จ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ on Jan 4, 2022 10:08:45 GMT
Despite what one thinks are failings of any poster, then please stick to the topic and not make it personal.
I am unsure if the burning question should revolve around pyres or is relevant to the topic. That is for Nessie to decide. There was a defence for the Nazis at Nuremberg, read up what they did, if anything.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jan 4, 2022 10:19:07 GMT
Despite what one thinks are failings of any poster, then please stick to the topic and not make it personal. I am unsure if the burning question should revolve around pyres or is relevant to the topic. That is for Nessie to decide. There was a defence for the Nazis at Nuremberg, read up what they did, if anything. It is difficult to not appear to be making it โpersonalโ when issues are ignored, avoided or misunderstood. Because then to make sense of the discussion requires demolishing an individualโs personal argument and argument style/tactics.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2022 9:26:21 GMT
If you claim in court that pyres on grates are not physically possible, you will need an expert witness to evidence that claim. Where will you get such a witness from? There are cremation experts. For a trial, you would need someone who has published expertise on outdoor, mass cremations using pyres, pyres of the type described by the Nazis and other witnesses. Otherwise, the court will dismiss your supposed expert as not a relevant expert.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2022 9:30:31 GMT
Nessie wrote: First you will have to explain to the judge what you mean by "pyres on grates". That is, bodies placed on a grate over a pyre of wood. There are any number of people who are knowledgeable about cremations. Professors in the field of thermodynamics. Crematory operators. Hindus who have studied the deforestation problems of India due to cremations. People who specialize in the disposal of animal carcasses. No shortage of witnesses.
In an unbiased court you will be stuck with the claims of the alleged witnesses. You won't be able to excuse their statements with your opinions of what they meant. You won't be able to say, "The witness said that the fuel consisted of small twigs the size of toothpicks but that was an exaggeration". There will be immediate objections by the defense to you voicing your opinions of what the witnesses meant.
The Judge will point out to you, the defence, that your clients admit that they cremated hundreds of thousands of corpses.
The prosecution will present your client's testimony that they devised a method using grates over wood to cremate those corpses. The prosecution will also present the evidence of archaeologists that they found buried cremated remains at the camp sites.
The Judge will then question your suitability to be a defence counsel and would warn you that perjury applies to lawyers as well.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 5, 2022 9:55:52 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Proving that the Germans were coerced or just lied for their own reasons wouldn't be difficult. Gley testified that cadavers were the only fuel used to cremate cadavers. Where is the testimony from Germans who weren't coerced? Mengele emphatically denied the atrocities attributed to him.
The prosecution has no archaeological proof of the remains of millions of Jews. There's no proof of cremains. Stating the obvious isn't perjury.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2022 14:36:00 GMT
Nessie wrote: Proving that the Germans were coerced or just lied for their own reasons wouldn't be difficult. If it is not difficult, why has no evidence been presented, to prove the German trials accused were coerced or lied for their own reasons? A Judge would warn you not to make unfounded accusations, and your Nazi clients would likely sack you for calling them liars in court. Would you call your own client a liar, during that trial? That would mean you are accusing your client of perjury and you could cause them to be convicted of that crime. First, produce the evidence they were. Mengele was never put on trial. The Judge will explain the difference between proof and evidence to you and that archaeologists who go through their reports on their examinations at the AR camp sites and how they found buried cremated remains, is archaeological evidence. That evidence, along with the witness evidence, documentary evidence and the confessions of your clients is why he is convicting them.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 5, 2022 17:56:31 GMT
Nessie wrote:
That the witnesses were coerced isn't an unfounded accusation. Rudolph Hoess is just one example of torture being used to extract a confession. There's also the medical report that the testicles of many of those so interrogated were damaged beyond repair. I doubt if many of the National Socialists would sack me for suggesting that their testimony was the result of coercion. That's just your opinion, though.
Gley testified to an impossibility. Why would he do that unless coerced? It is a FACT that cadavers can't be used to cremate cadavers. Cadavers aren't combustible until enough external heat is applied to them to evaporate the water in the body.
Precisely. ALL German witnesses were involved in the legal system. No depositions were ever taken from Germans who were free from legal consequences.
There is no archaeological proof of millions of Jews being murdered, buried, exhumed and cremated. NONE. Zip, zero nada. There is no documentary evidence of that beyond claims made by Wiernik, Rajchman et al. Neither have you proved that the Germans weren't coerced. No unbiased judge or jury would convict under those circumstances.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2022 18:52:33 GMT
Nessie wrote: That the witnesses were coerced isn't an unfounded accusation. Rudolph Hoess is just one example of torture being used to extract a confession. There's also the medical report that the testicles of many of those so interrogated were damaged beyond repair. I doubt if many of the National Socialists would sack me for suggesting that their testimony was the result of coercion. That's just your opinion, though. If you have evidence of coercion, you can put it to the court. If you do not have evidence and your client has made no claim of being coerced, and you announce in court there has been coercion, then it is you who would be dismissed, by the court and probably also the legal profession. You are making assumptions, in court you need evidence. You have assumed that the pyres would not work. The Judge would explain to you that the court does not need to know how the pyres would, work, just that they worked. When the prosecution has presented multiple witness to pyres and archaeologists who have found physical evidence to corroborate the witnesses, unless you can produce evidence, then you will be told to sit down and shut up. Judges recognise logical fallacies, unlike you and a Judge will not take kindly to you arguing logical fallacies. Mengele did not deny gassings took place inside the Kremas. He did not provide any evidence as to what did happen instead. The same applies to every single Nazi, whether they were part of legal proceedings or not. The archaeologist giving evidence will agree with you that the archaeological evidence alone does not prove the gassing, mass graves and cremation claims. The Judge will wonder what law school, you went to! The evidence from the archaeologists will prove that there are large areas of disturbed ground containing buried cremated remains and personal possessions, many of which were Jewish in origin and that there are the remains of demolished buildings where the witness said gas chambers were located. Every jury would convict an accused of murder, when - the accused admits to the murder - there are multiple witnesses to the murder - where there is physical, circumstantial and documentary evidence corroborating the witnesses - where the defence cannot produce any evidence of coercion or any alternative to alibi the accused.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 5, 2022 20:43:45 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Mengele's son asked him about the atrocities he was accused of committing. He denied such accusations which would include him selecting individuals for the gas chamber. Are you saying that Mengele DIDN'T deny the atrocity accusations?
BTW, Mengele's journals were put up for auction and a rich Jew bought them. He has kept them hidden since then. What is the likelihood of those journals being kept secret if they were incriminating? Right, just about zero.
As far as "every single Nazi" why don't you present some quotes from Hans Rudel or some of his friends from Argentina? Why no depositions from displaced National Socialists? Oh, that's right, Nessie only accepts testimony from those in allied captivity and/or on trial. That way he gets to hear only what he wants to hear.
|
|