Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 18, 2022 8:14:32 GMT
Nessie wrote: Most rational people think your "evidence" to be bullsh!t. That is yet another lie. All universities, after decades of study, accept it. The vast majority of rational people accept it, especially when it is pointed out to them that there is no evidenced alternative and the sheer scale of the hoax deniers are alleging.
You have dodged my question, because you cannot answer it. You know it is not rational to dismiss the evidence for something & then claim it does not matter what did happen.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 18, 2022 8:37:28 GMT
Nessie wrote:
At universities it's conventional wisdom that the National Socialists had an official policy of exterminating the Jews. Anyone who questions the conventional wisdom is either ostracized (Butz) or fired (Kollerstrom).
I would like to see some proof of your statement that "ALL universities" in the entire world agree that the National Socialists had a stated policy of exterminating the Jews.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 18, 2022 8:44:58 GMT
Nessie wrote: At universities it's conventional wisdom that the National Socialists had an official policy of exterminating the Jews. Anyone who questions the conventional wisdom is either ostracized (Butz) or fired (Kollerstrom). I would like to see some proof of your statement that "ALL universities" in the entire world agree that the National Socialists had a stated policy of exterminating the Jews. Any academic who questions something, is expected to provide evidence. Failure to do so results in their ostracism or firing.
I cannot find any evidence of a university that teaches there was no Holocaust. No history department teaches what did not happen in history.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 18, 2022 9:10:19 GMT
Nessie wrote:
That has to be the most asinine statement I've heard in a long time. Are you actually claiming that Butz and Kollerstrom presented no evidence whatsoever for their skepticism about the holyhoax? That Rudolf wasn't denied his doctorate for his chemical analysis at A-B? The list goes on and on and here you're claiming that no revisionist ever provided any evidence for their skepticism. Unbelievable.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Posts: 1,113 
|
Post by nazgul on Sept 18, 2022 9:25:27 GMT
Nessie wrote: That has to be the most asinine statement I've heard in a long time. Are you actually claiming that Butz and Kollerstrom presented no evidence whatsoever for their skepticism about the holyhoax? That Rudolf wasn't denied his doctorate for his chemical analysis at A-B? The list goes on and on and here you're claiming that no revisionist ever provided any evidence for their skepticism. Unbelievable. What Nessie actually thinks is really of little significance. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 18, 2022 13:47:21 GMT
Nessie wrote: That has to be the most asinine statement I've heard in a long time. Are you actually claiming that Butz and Kollerstrom presented no evidence whatsoever for their skepticism about the holyhoax? Yes. Name a witness or show me a document, physical item, archaeological study or other form of evidence that they found, that evidenced what did happen inside the AR camps or A-B Kremas. What you have never been able to get your head around, despite its obvious simplicity, is that disputing evidence for gassings, is not the same as finding evidence to disprove gassings. In a simple form, but I doubt you will get this, if a witness states he saw a gassing at Belzec, to prove that witness is lying, a historian needs to find a witness who was at Belzec and who states there was no gassing and what happened instead. Rudolf was punished for trying to pass off an argument from incredulity, as an academic work. He argued that because he could work out how the Nazis could gas so many people without leaving the levels of cyanide residue as he thought there should be, therefore no gassings. He made no effort to evidence what did happen instead, which is what would be needed to prove no gassings. Rudolf needed witnesses, documents and other evidence, directly pertaining to the Kremas, which proved that instead of gassings, something else happened inside the Kremas. Butz tried to argue the Kremas were used as air raid shelters. But that makes no sense when A-B was out of range of attack and there is no witness to be found who said that he saw inside the Kremas and they were air raid shelters. Krema I was converted into an air raid shelter and that is proved by witnesses and the physical evidence. No such evidence has been found to prove Kremas II to V were also used as air raid shelters. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 18, 2022 17:05:17 GMT
Nessie wrote: I'm going to have to seriously re-think been-there's contention that Nessie is actually insane. No, you klown, all that has to be proven is that the witness lied about observing a murder and can't produce a body. The witnesses are proven liars whether deliberate or by coercion but they are demonstrable liars. That is why you can't produce even one witness who gives a coherent account of how the victims were gassed, buried, exhumed, cremated and reburied. Zundle, with Christy and Faurisson proved proved even Hilberg a fool and a liar. Zundle was found guilty of promoting racial hatred, not for presenting false evidence. For the cross examination of Vrba, go here: aaargh.vho.org/engl/vrba1.htmlYour contention that the defense must prove beyond reasonable doubt as to what actually happened is pure idiocy. Proving that the witnesses lied is sufficient. Did the witnesses lie about the gassing? Yes, they did. Did the witnesses lie about millions being cremated in both crematories and makeshift pyres? Yes they did. Can the witnesses show any laboratory tested cremains that would account for hundreds of thousands of cadavers at any of the so-called extermination facilities? No, they can't. Take your clownish assertion that the defense must prove beyond a reasonable doubt what did happen and sell it down the street, Nessie. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 19, 2022 8:03:28 GMT
Nessie wrote: I'm going to have to seriously re-think been-there's contention that Nessie is actually insane. No, you klown, all that has to be proven is that the witness lied about observing a murder... The method I use to determine lying, which is to find other evidence, is the reliable and credible method. The method you use, which is primarily based on your opinion, is not reliable or credible. If A accuses B of murdering C, then it is likely A is lying if C is found alive. But A may still have good reason to believe B had murdered C. If C is found dead, that also means A may not be telling the truth, as it may have been an accidental death. The witnesses at the AR camps are corroborated by large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains. The complexities of evidencing are beyond your understanding. You keep on getting credibility mixed up with truthfulness. Just because you do not find a witness to be credible, does not therefore mean they are lying. It is perfectly possible to be credible and a liar, or the other way round. In a court situation, the accused does not need to prove what happened and defence tactics include damaging prosecution witnesses so that their evidence is dismissed. One way an accused person can be found innocent, is the defence providing exculpatory evidence, such as a witness who was there are who will state the claimed events did not happen. The study of the Holocaust is not the Holocaust on trial. When studying history, historians find out what happened. You do not find histories full of what did not happen. History is not studied by the method used to conduct a trial. History is studied by gathering evidence and then logically piecing that evidence together to find out what DID happen. You claim no gassings and that by the end of the war millions of Jews had survived. It is up to you to evidence that claim. If millions had survived the camps, it would be easy to find witnesses to what did happen inside TII, Sobibor, Belzec, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas. Plus, all the Nazis would have a different version of events to give. |
|
