Lessons in LOGIC

By tracing and interviewing the boy and getting him to replicate his cycle to the moon. By tracing and interviewing an expert in gravity to prove a boy lacks the power to break free of gravity and cycle into the air, let alone the moon.

So no dodge or misrepresentation from me then, as you admit to not making yourself clearer and you moved the goal posts from cross-examined to critically cross-examined.



You are "not aware of" means you have not bothered to read through all the trials to see what the cross-examinations were like, so your claim there was no critical cross-examination is unevidenced.



Zundell's first trial was from 1985-88. Demjanjuk's first trial ran from 1986-1988. I just cited Demjanjuk as one where I know there was critical cross-examination. You are the one who makes the claim, no critical cross-examination, so logically the burden of proof is on you.

You made a mistake, which you admit to, and now you are trying to point score and labour the point. I answered your original claim in a reasonable, direct way and then when you altered your claim, I have answered that as well.

You are trying to point score, because you are deflecting from the fact you made an unevidenced claim about the nature of Jewish witnesses being cross-examined.



Here is Vrba's testimony from the Zundell trial;

aaargh.vho.org/engl/vrba3.html

Where did he admit that he had lied about seeing a gassing? What Christie does is clarify the hearsay that Vrba reported in his book. Please quote the part where he Vrba was forced to confess to lying about seeing a gassing. Then we can discuss that further.



Your conclusion is based on assumed premise. You have assumed the eyewitnesses to gassings all lied. You have assumed that "genuine" cross-examination would reveal those lies. You are wrong with both premise.



Vrba was asked about his book "I Cannot Forgive", and as he said, when asked "All the contents are true?", he replied "I wouldn't answer in a direct way to this question, because this is a work of literature, and not a document...". What Christie goes on to do is show how much of the book is hearsay. Vrba genuinely believes what he was told, he was not exposed as a liar. If a witness is wrong, but they genuinely believe they are right and they are telling the truth, the court has not exposed that person as a liar, they have just exposed them as being wrong.



You made a logically flawed argument and then showed your ignorance about courts and witnesses.



How so? Trying to get actual evidence out of you is usually very difficult. I have had the same difficulty with everyone I have debated here, from Bob, to Werd, to Turnagain, to you. You all love to make assertions and claims and then when I ask for evidence, you get upset. Remember, me asking for evidence is not me claiming you are wrong or lying. It is me giving you the chance to produce evidence, to then discuss if you are wrong, or lying, or telling the truth.



How do I know you are not bluffing? You constantly lie about there being "no evidence" when we only ever discuss that evidence!!!!!

I doubt you know much about cross-examination and your use of the term "critical" suggests you think cross-examination is only "critical" when it is trying to catch a witness out and prove they are lying.



You said Vrba was the first witness to be the subject of critical cross-examination, for which you have offered zero evidence. You have claimed that Vrba was forced to confess he lied, but you offered no evidence of that.

As is normal with you, you hate being asked to evidence your claims and you think being asked to evidence your claims is me claiming you are wrong. I cited Demjanjuk's trial off the top of my head, as an example of critical cross-examination and it has prompted you to go into more detail and hopefully you will start to produce evidence.

Again, you try to use logic, when you should be using evidence. That is a revisionist trait, their supposed logic is presented in lieu of evidence.

To evidence it was the first time a Jewish person claiming to be an eyewitness was subjected to "genuine" cross-examination, first you need to define what is a "genuine" cross-examination. Then you need to produce evidence from every single cross-examination of a Jewish witness at every single Holocaust related trial prior to the Zundel trial.



A claim made in ignorance of court procedure and the Holocaust trials. The defence gets to dispute the evidence of prosecution witnesses, when they have evidence to dispute that witness. Normally, that is when the accused and the witness are at odds with each other and they are making opposite claims. In the case of the Nazi trials, the accused Nazis admitted to the gassings and so the defence will not and cannot call the witness a liar about gassing, because their client has admitted to that gassing.

No matter how many times it is pointed out to you, to dispute the Jewish witness claims, you need evidence, not argument. Defence lawyers who merely call the witness a liar, without any evidence they are lying, usually get into trouble themselves. When Vrba was cross-examined, the main trust of that cross-examination was about what had been presented as eyewitness evidence, when it was hearsay and to what extant his book was eyewitness and what was narrative. The actual gassings, because they are so well evidenced, were not disputed by the defence.



Your argument is weak, so as usual, you resort to bullying and abuse.



No, I will not dodge that. I merely presented Demjanjuk as an example of another critical cross-examination, as the start of your evidence gathering to prove your claim all prior trials had no critical cross-examination. I made a mistake over chronology, as the trials overlapped and lasted years. You are obviously not very confident in your initial claim, as you have changed it to "genuine" without defining what a "genuine cross-examination" is.



You are arguing that because I disagree with you, you are entitled to bully and abuse me. You constantly seek to belittle and annoy those who disagree with you. The many sources about Nessie the monster, use "it" rather than "she". I have said to I wish to be referred to as "he", so you deliberately use other than that, which proves you are a bully, as it is bullying behaviour to keep on doing something you know shows them disrespect and contempt, when asked to stop.

When I was asked to refer to you as a revisionist, I have done so. I show Scott and the moderators respect, you show disrespect, which speaks to the type of person you are.


That claim shows how little you know about court procedure. Do you think that any of the lawyers who defended a Nazi during a Holocaust trial, would dispute Jewish claims to gas chambers, when their own clients did not dispute there were gas chambers?



Your logic is flawed, because what you likely call a "genuine" cross-examination could not happen, because the Nazis did not dispute gassings! That you do not understand that, shows how little you know about trials.



1 - show where Vrba was exposed as a liar. He was caught out mixing hearsay with eyewitness claims, he was not caught out lying about gassings having happened. 




How so? What are you talking about?



Define "critical". I have explained why no Jewish witness was accused of lying about gassings taking place at specific camps. I have explained that cross-examination found Vrba mixed hearsay with eyewitness evidence and witness identification as disputed at the Demjanjuk trial, so where is your evidence that prior to the Zundel trial, every single claim made by a Jewish witness in court, was accepted without question?



You made a claim, I have asked you to evidence it, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof.



I have not insisted the Demjanjuk trial was earlier. The two trials overlapped each other, but, as far as I can find, Vrba was cross-examined prior to the disputed identification cross-examination at the Demjanjuk trial. You are labouring the point again, to deflect from your burden of proof.



I do know better than you about how trials are conducted, which is why you did not understand about how the Nazi defence lawyers could cross-examine witnesses. They cannot call them liars about the gassings, because the Nazi accused did not dispute there were gassings. How do you not know or understand that!!!!!!



Logic is trumped by evidence, when it comes to determining who has lied and who has told the truth. If you knew anything about courts, history and evidence, you would know that.

Reports of mass shootings listed partisans separately to Jews and all Jews, including women and children were shot.

fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocJager.htm

The euthanasia project 14f13 was for the disabled. Everyone not needed for work, disabled or not, were killed at the AR camps and A-B.

To keep this on topic, your claims are not logically conclusive and do not follow the evidence. Another example is here;



You have not produced any evidence as to what camps were open in 1945, their sizes when liberated, those responsible for the camps simply abandoning them and people just dissipating, the numbers returning home to claim homes, businesses and other property. It is not logical to believe your version of events, when there is no evidence.