|
Post by mrolonzo on May 7, 2022 8:34:49 GMT
Mrolonzo is going off topic, but it is important to note what he is discussing, without him realising, is the contextualising of evidence. Cyanide residues and cremains on their own, do not tell us what happened. Frank Bright, on his own, only tells us a small part of what happened. To find out what happened, ALL of the evidence has to be logically and chronologically pieced together. Nope you're going off topic, you make repeated claims that counter the current research and accuse authors of making arguments from incredulity. You're free to stick exactly to the topic and refrain from denigrating revisionists arguments and research.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on May 7, 2022 8:39:30 GMT
Been-there and Mrolonzo are going off topic on the subject of destruction of evidence. I have said as much as I will do in this thread on that topic, so as to stop the thread going off topic.
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on May 7, 2022 8:44:21 GMT
Been-there and Mrolonzo are going off topic on the subject of destruction of evidence. I have said as much as I will do in this thread on that topic, so as to stop the thread going off topic. Nope. You tried to take the thread off topic from the get go by refusing to directly address the OP content. You did that deliberately yet you think I wouldn't see it.
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on May 7, 2022 8:47:07 GMT
There is no evidence of any cover up of evidence. That's simply a cope for the lack of it. No cremains were ever evidenced. When drill holes were dug looking for actual evidence the result was the same, some bodies but no mass graves as evidence was what was found. Nothing more was found. No revisionist in the world fears this area being dug up in examined in a lab. Im happy to focus on one specific detail. Been-there let's you get off Scott free by making wide ranging points to skip and dance as you like. It makes no difference if you try and discuss wide-ranging issues or specifc, small details. Nessie’s isn’t here to have genuine discussion and debate. He is here to contradict regardless of whether that requires a 180° change from arguments he has used before. He has admitted that his purpose is to provoke people into making anti-semitic comments. So the more irrational and nonsensical his replies are, makes no difference to him, as that serve the purpose. IF people get frustrated by his refusal to see reason, and start to use anti-semitic insults his purpose is served. Or if they make extreme, vague arguments such as ’it never happened’, or insupportable, extreme statements such as ’no-one was ever gassed’. See above for a nonsense argument. Position 1: the evidence DOES exist, revisionists are in denial of it. Position 2: the evidence does NOT exist because the retreating Nazties destroyed it. Position 3: he says both are true. In his head there is no contradiction. His mission is successfully accomplished as he has contradicted a reasonable revisionist argument. This thread is about how the ’eye witness’ testimony actually refutes the compulsory, pseudo-historical, legally-protected Holocaust narrative.In his replies he has contradicted irrefutable facts PLUS he has successfully derailed discussion of the devastating truth about eye-witness testimony actually refuting the H-narrative. So he is happy. THIS is what he has obfuscated! The lies of old East European Jews in school class rooms to captive children are celebrated. Their lies and racist hate-tropes are NOT punished. They are instead honoured and televised. While an old German woman who sanely, intelligently, reasonably exposes the deceptions inherent in the narrative is persistently persecuted and imprisoned. Frank Bright is presented to school kids as an eye-witness to all that as he actually saw “a gas chamber in action” at Auschwitz and seeing that as a young teenager “still affects” him. But we all know — including Nessie — that that isn’t true. This is how the unevidenced narrative of a Jew-genocide in gas-chambers is being perpetuated. By allowing old people to lie in class rooms, claiming to have ‘witnessed’ things we KNOW they didn’t.Been there you were free to dismiss Nessie's response as the irrelevant to the specific topic of the thread nonsense it is. You didn't. So instead Nessie continues arguing about wider evidence subjects then accuses me of going off topic for responding to his stupid off topic claims. Which we both know, is why codoh doesn't just let anyone say anything. Hoaxers are terrible at sticking to one topic because they cannot ever grant you one point that might help revisionists. Therefore their first task in most threads is instead of addressing specific issues, to speak to wider issues hoping to generate a long argument over those. This is why I always, when dealing with hoaxers, will seek to hone down the discussion to specific points of contention.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 7, 2022 9:19:26 GMT
It makes no difference if you try and discuss wide-ranging issues or specifc, small details. Nessie’s isn’t here to have genuine discussion and debate. He is here to contradict regardless of whether that requires a 180° change from arguments he has used before. He has admitted that his purpose is to provoke people into making anti-semitic comments. So the more irrational and nonsensical his replies are, makes no difference to him, as that serve the purpose. IF people get frustrated by his refusal to see reason, and start to use anti-semitic insults his purpose is served. Or if they make extreme, vague arguments such as ’it never happened’, or insupportable, extreme statements such as ’no-one was ever gassed’. See above for a nonsense argument. Position 1: the evidence DOES exist, revisionists are in denial of it. Position 2: the evidence does NOT exist because the retreating Nazties destroyed it. Position 3: he says both are true. In his head there is no contradiction. His mission is successfully accomplished as he has contradicted a reasonable revisionist argument. This thread is about how the ’eye witness’ testimony actually refutes the compulsory, pseudo-historical, legally-protected Holocaust narrative.In his replies he has contradicted irrefutable facts PLUS he has successfully derailed discussion of the devastating truth about eye-witness testimony actually refuting the H-narrative. So he is happy. THIS is what he has obfuscated! The lies of old East European Jews in school class rooms to captive children are celebrated. Their lies and racist hate-tropes are NOT punished. They are instead honoured and televised. While an old German woman who sanely, intelligently, reasonably exposes the deceptions inherent in the narrative is persistently persecuted and imprisoned. Frank Bright is presented to school kids as an eye-witness to all that as he actually saw “a gas chamber in action” at Auschwitz and seeing that as a young teenager “still affects” him. But we all know — including Nessie — that that isn’t true. This is how the unevidenced narrative of a Jew-genocide in gas-chambers is being perpetuated. By allowing old people to lie in class rooms, claiming to have ‘witnessed’ things we KNOW they didn’t.Been there you were free to dismiss Nessie's response as the irrelevant to the specific topic of the thread nonsense it is. You didn't. So instead Nessie continues arguing about wider evidence subjects then accuses me of going off topic for responding to his stupid off topic claims. Which we both know, is why codoh doesn't just let anyone say anything. Hoaxers are terrible at sticking to one topic because they cannot ever grant you one point that might help revisionists. Therefore their first task in most threads is instead of addressing specific issues, to speak to wider issues hoping to generate a long argument over those. This is why I always, when dealing with hoaxers, will seek to hone down the discussion to specific points of contention. Fine. 🙂 I am just suggesting whatever you do, it makes no difference. I have never come across a single online H-narrative-defender who is genuinely interested in discussing the actual history fairly, rationally and honestly. Some are clearly motivated to argue mainly from hate towards dissenters. Some are just obstinately self-delusional. Nessie is easily the craziest of the lot. Frank Bright and Susan Pollack were the latest examples I gave in this topic-thread of people presented as ‘eye-witnesses’ who are encouraged to give FALSE statements but which are presented as ’first-hand’ accurate testimony. I suggest to you that even though I demonstrated specific details in their testimony that were clearly deceptions, it made no difference. For the reasons explained above. I know of no other event in history which so heavily relies on indoctrinating young children into an irrational ’belief’ of an unevidenced war-crime by emphasising emotive ’eye-witness’ testimony. And testimony that it has now protected, by making it an illegal hate-crime to question, critique or expose as false.
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on May 7, 2022 9:44:25 GMT
Been there you were free to dismiss Nessie's response as the irrelevant to the specific topic of the thread nonsense it is. You didn't. So instead Nessie continues arguing about wider evidence subjects then accuses me of going off topic for responding to his stupid off topic claims. Which we both know, is why codoh doesn't just let anyone say anything. Hoaxers are terrible at sticking to one topic because they cannot ever grant you one point that might help revisionists. Therefore their first task in most threads is instead of addressing specific issues, to speak to wider issues hoping to generate a long argument over those. This is why I always, when dealing with hoaxers, will seek to hone down the discussion to specific points of contention. Fine. 🙂 I am just suggesting whatever you do, it makes no difference. I have never come across a single online H-narrative-defender who is genuinely interested in discussing the actual history fairly, rationally and honestly. Some are clearly motivated to argue mainly from hate towards dissenters. Some are just obstinately self-delusional. Nessie is easily the craziest of the lot. Frank Bright and Susan Pollack were the latest examples I gave in this topic-thread of people presented as ‘eye-witnesses’ who are encouraged to give FALSE statements but which are presented as ’first-hand’ accurate testimony. I suggest to you that even though I demonstrated specific details in their testimony that were clearly deceptions, it made no difference. For the reasons explained above. I know of no other event in history which so heavily relies on indoctrinating young children into an irrational ’belief’ of an unevidenced war-crime by emphasising emotive ’eye-witness’ testimony. And testimony that it has now protected, by making it an illegal hate-crime to question, critique or expose as false. You're right there is none. Even 80 years later mass indoctrination is the key word. At some point people will have to admit it's a religion. However, this is a clear case of a "lie witness " to the events. Further proof that this was common practice at the time and since. Honing down to one point, is the reason no hoaxer author has ever discussed these matters with a revisionist author. Because we would simply ask about specific details and the hoaxers have nothing to offer in return. Best example, my favourite: Mattogno's take down point by point of Pressac's criminal traces. Nessie is however, not here to stand and fight, but to conduct hit and run. An insult here, a bad argument there, then either obfuscate, or insult or pivot against any response. Its intellectual guerrilla warfare. But guerrillas hate to be cornered.
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on May 7, 2022 12:16:40 GMT
........ without him realising, is the contextualising of evidence. Cyanide residues and cremains on their own, do not tell us what happened. Frank Bright, on his own, only tells us a small part of what happened. To find out what happened, ALL of the evidence has to be logically and chronologically pieced together. There is no missing the contextualizing of evidence. It's clearly spelled out. You are opting for the Shermer defence, where you posit that the holocaust can be defended by pointing to a number of different points that you then claim all together makes a massacre. This was done against Mark Weber in the 1990s. It was immediately refuted by Weber by simply saying that revisionists can use the same method also ie we can point to many more different points, and piece them together, which of course we have done. Which is therefore why we are superior in all matters in this subject and have nothing to fear in debate or discovery. Any cursory reading of revisionist work, which is superior in every respect to orthodox literature either in detail descriptions, original documents found or clearly laid out argumentation, will show this. No hoaxer today can defend their views in real life, shermer is the only one to have ever done so. The rest scurry, even Nessie scurried around right here when I offered to him the possibility of meeting in real life and travelling to Poland. Further, at no point would Nessie do an interview or discussion with Germar Rudolf even though that could be arranged.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on May 7, 2022 14:08:37 GMT
That schools and the survivors do not go into any detail about the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence, is not important, since the hearsay evidence is about events that are evidenced sufficiently by other forms of evidence, to prove they happened.
It is fine for Frank Bright to talk about gassings and gas chambers, as he was at A-B when people were being gassed.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on May 7, 2022 14:12:28 GMT
........ without him realising, is the contextualising of evidence. Cyanide residues and cremains on their own, do not tell us what happened. Frank Bright, on his own, only tells us a small part of what happened. To find out what happened, ALL of the evidence has to be logically and chronologically pieced together. There is no missing the contextualizing of evidence. It's clearly spelled out. You are opting for the Shermer defence, where you posit that the holocaust can be defended by pointing to a number of different points that you then claim all together makes a massacre. This was done against Mark Weber in the 1990s. It was immediately refuted by Weber by simply saying that revisionists can use the same method also ie we can point to many more different points, and piece them together, which of course we have done. Which is therefore why we are superior in all matters in this subject and have nothing to fear in debate or discovery. Any cursory reading of revisionist work, which is superior in every respect to orthodox literature either in detail descriptions, original documents found or clearly laid out argumentation, will show this. No hoaxer today can defend their views in real life, shermer is the only one to have ever done so. The rest scurry, even Nessie scurried around right here when I offered to him the possibility of meeting in real life and travelling to Poland. Further, at no point would Nessie do an interview or discussion with Germar Rudolf even though that could be arranged. OK, show me an evidenced chronology as to what happened inside Krema II in 1943 and 1944. Start with the witness evidence from those who were inside the Krema at that time.
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on May 7, 2022 20:30:35 GMT
That schools and the survivors do not go into any detail about the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence, is not important, since the hearsay evidence is about events that are evidenced sufficiently by other forms of evidence, to prove they happened. It is fine for Frank Bright to talk about gassings and gas chambers, as he was at A-B when people were being gassed. It's not fine. It's hearsay, and the counter theory is better evidenced.
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on May 7, 2022 20:32:09 GMT
There is no missing the contextualizing of evidence. It's clearly spelled out. You are opting for the Shermer defence, where you posit that the holocaust can be defended by pointing to a number of different points that you then claim all together makes a massacre. This was done against Mark Weber in the 1990s. It was immediately refuted by Weber by simply saying that revisionists can use the same method also ie we can point to many more different points, and piece them together, which of course we have done. Which is therefore why we are superior in all matters in this subject and have nothing to fear in debate or discovery. Any cursory reading of revisionist work, which is superior in every respect to orthodox literature either in detail descriptions, original documents found or clearly laid out argumentation, will show this. No hoaxer today can defend their views in real life, shermer is the only one to have ever done so. The rest scurry, even Nessie scurried around right here when I offered to him the possibility of meeting in real life and travelling to Poland. Further, at no point would Nessie do an interview or discussion with Germar Rudolf even though that could be arranged. OK, show me an evidenced chronology as to what happened inside Krema II in 1943 and 1944. Start with the witness evidence from those who were inside the Krema at that time. Check out the death book of the camp, the health records, Rudolfs technical analysis plus the surrounding documents of the camp. This is sufficient, if you want to try the shermer defence again or argue for Pressac's traces that's fine too.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on May 8, 2022 7:44:55 GMT
That schools and the survivors do not go into any detail about the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence, is not important, since the hearsay evidence is about events that are evidenced sufficiently by other forms of evidence, to prove they happened. It is fine for Frank Bright to talk about gassings and gas chambers, as he was at A-B when people were being gassed. It's not fine. It's hearsay, and the counter theory is better evidenced. The counter theories about what did happen inside the Kremas 1943-4 are
Mattogno - showering and delousing Crowell - showering Butz - air raid shelters
So, three counter theories, which one is best evidenced?
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on May 8, 2022 8:11:13 GMT
So, three counter theories, which one is best evidenced? The Alien Hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 8, 2022 8:26:21 GMT
So, three counter theories, which one is best evidenced? The Alien Hypothesis. Does that ’hypothesis’ have any ‘eye-witnesses’? 🙂😉 👀👁👁
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on May 8, 2022 8:46:44 GMT
Does that ’hypothesis’ have any ‘eye-witnesses’? 🙂😉 👀👁👁 Extra terrestrial visits do have eyewitnesses. Mass showering, delousing and sheltering from bombs inside the Kremas do not have any witnesses. The logical conclusion, based on the evidence, is that the witnesses to ET are lying and there are no witnesses to mass showering etc in the Kremas, is because it did not happen.
|
|