|
Post by Gibson on Feb 28, 2023 6:23:50 GMT
"If you were expecting me to provide a similar list of evidence that makes up the "revisionist case", I cannot, because there is none." This same guy complains about being "strawmanned." What a clown. Nessie, I've given you every chance and you've repeatedly shown yourself to be uninformed, overly stubborn, and not worth talking to. If you want any interaction from me, frankly, you will need to start doing some better quality posting. And be more intellectually honest. Second request, please provide me with a summary of the "revisionist case". You can include evidence revisionists use to make their case. There are a few main reasons people generally believe in the holocaust. 1) The academic establishment currently upholds it, as does the government and media. 2) Going back closer to the time of the event, we have the terrible scenes in the camps at the end of the war which first convinced people of the reality of the atrocities (and we could to this the war crimes trials which shortly thereafter formally established many of the atrocity claims as fact). 3) We have the decline in the Jewish population in Europe. 1) We should not be persuaded by this supposed academic consensus for the simple reason that there is no true consensus. The "consensus" is completely artificial. There have in fact been many people, often rather well-credentialed, who have disbelieved this stuff. Additionally, most mainstream historians more or less ignored it for many years. It was not until perhaps the late 70s to early 80s that it started becoming dominant, essentially as a Jewish special interest. Academics who have crossed the line have generally been ostracized, removed from their positions, etc. Faurisson was pushed out. Henri Roques had his PhD revoked by the French government. Joel Hayward had to keep his thesis secret and had to renounce it and beg for mercy when it was eventually uncovered. Other academic historians such as Samuel Crowell have had revisionist views but have had to write under pseudonyms. 2) Most of the film and photographs are from the Western camps which are not even alleged today to be the "extermination" camps. Yet it is clear that these scenes were (and are) presented in a highly deceptive and misleading way. This was the number one proof in the mind of the general public and it was an outright fraud. The Americans, the British, the Soviets, and the Jews all had an incentive to play up German atrocities in order to present themselves as having fought a glorious and justified war against the barbarous Germans. I will not go into a full critique of the war crimes trials here but suffice it to say that this is where many of the claims were formally established as "fact" and the early histories rely very heavily on the material from these trials, in particular statements extracted from Germans in Allied custody. All of the "extermination" camps were in Soviet-controlled territory and were not open to Western observers. Many of the Soviet reports such as the one on Katyn is acknowledged to be a complete hoax even by mainstream historians. The Majdanek report has also more or less been acknowledged as fraudulent, at least implicitly. These are the people who investigated Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc. 3) It is problematic to use population statistics to prove murder since people can "disappear" demographically for a variety of statistical reasons. Jewish population statistics in particular are notoriously challenging. The standard six million number was used before the war was even over and it's clearly a bogus figure without any legitimate basis. There were Jews in DP camps and behind the Iron Curtain after the war and Jewish population grew in other countries, most notably the US (which does not census Jews) and Israel. Some additional points: -The showers, Zyklon, etc that were given great prominence in the propaganda all have ordinary, mundane explanations. We are asked to accept that these things had a sinister dual interpretation. And we are asked to ignore the likelihood that the Allies simply misrepresented this stuff for propaganda. -Although MILLIONS of people were supposedly executed in German gas chambers, the Allied found ZERO verifiable gas chambers. The intact "gas chambers" discovered at Dachau, Mauthausen, and Majdanek are a joke (shower rooms and the like). Not one gas van was ever found. Nor are there any unambiguous designs or plans for any of these things. When the Auschwitz crematoria blueprints were finally released they were forced to change the story and say that the buildings were converted into gas chambers later on instead of being designed as mass gassing facilities. -The documentary evidence for a mass extermination program is remarkably thin. Famously there is no Hitler order. At Nuremberg the story was that the "final solution" began right after Barbarossa in 1941. Later on holocaust historians were forced to change the story to say that the policy "evolved" gradually. This was to work around the fact that numerous German documents use the term "final solution" in ways completely at odds with the Allied interpretation of that phrase. If the documentary evidence were strong, the establishment historians wouldn't need to debate these very basic things or make major changes to the story. -If we trace the holocaust claims back in time what we find is that the stories originated from propagandistic and usually anonymous stories that are severely contradictory and often preposterous. The stories were only gradually smoothed out after the war. Many of the star "eyewitnesses" such as Hoess, Vrba, Gerstein, and others have fatal flaws in their statements. -During the war, the major players did not act as though the holocaust was really happening. The US Statement Department, for example. Or Jews themselves who we are told resisted only minimally and who cooperated to a surprising degree with their own extermination. -The story goes that the Germans made millions of bodies disappear by burning them, grinding up all the bones, and scattering everything. For the AR camps, they say the Germans buried 1.5M bodies, dug them up later on, and then finally burned them in open air with locally gathered wood. The numbers for this just do not work out.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 28, 2023 8:40:20 GMT
Its not a real debate, she will not debate deniers. Did you see the David Baddiel documentary, Confronting Holocaust Denial? He goes into that issue in some detail. Lipstadt will not debate Deniers because she is a faith-based theologian,... It is denial that is faith based. That is why your posts do not have any evidence as to what did happen instead of gassings. People who argue there were no mass gassings, without presenting any evidence of what happened, are correctly called deniers. You clearly have, from your next few sentences. My beliefs are backed by contemporaneous evidence to prove what happened. Your beliefs are backed by argument, opinion, assertion and faith. You are the one who has flipped the script, by trying to claim history is faith based. It is denial that is faith based. You cannot provide any contemporaneous evidence as to what did happen inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas, other than gassings. You have presented no evidence the AR camps and A-B kremas were used as steam chamber laundries. There is evidence to prove the Kremas were modified during construction for use for homicidal gassings and that gas chambers were built at the AR camps. That we do not have precise details as to their workings, and that you do not think they were possible, does not therefore mean no gassings. You need to deal with your inability to evidence what did happen, and your use of logical fallacies to prop up your beliefs.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 28, 2023 9:31:06 GMT
Second request, please provide me with a summary of the "revisionist case". You can include evidence revisionists use to make their case. There are a few main reasons people generally believe in the holocaust. 1) The academic establishment currently upholds it, as does the government and media. 2) Going back closer to the time of the event, we have the terrible scenes in the camps at the end of the war which first convinced people of the reality of the atrocities (and we could to this the war crimes trials which shortly thereafter formally established many of the atrocity claims as fact). 3) We have the decline in the Jewish population in Europe. 1) We should not be persuaded by this supposed academic consensus for the simple reason that there is no true consensus. The "consensus" is completely artificial. There have in fact been many people, often rather well-credentialed, who have disbelieved this stuff. Additionally, most mainstream historians more or less ignored it for many years. It was not until perhaps the late 70s to early 80s that it started becoming dominant, essentially as a Jewish special interest. Academics who have crossed the line have generally been ostracized, removed from their positions, etc. Faurisson was pushed out. Henri Roques had his PhD revoked by the French government. Joel Hayward had to keep his thesis secret and had to renounce it and beg for mercy when it was eventually uncovered. Other academic historians such as Samuel Crowell have had revisionist views but have had to write under pseudonyms. By 1945, there was already overwhelming evidence from eyewitnesses to mass murder, examinations of various sites, Nazi admissions, circumstantial evidence, motive, ability, opportunity and guilty conduct after the crime, that mass murder by gassing, shooting and neglect of the Jews, had taken place. Historians reached a consensus, that the Holocaust included mass murders, because of the evidence, which all pointed to mass gassings and shootings, along with the neglect, with no evidence of any alternative and certainly no evidence of millions of Jews surviving their time in Nazi captivity. Certain academics have suggested or clearly stated they do not believe the evidence for mass gassings, but belief is not evidence and they have no evidence as to what did happen. They cannot evidence a process other than mass gassing, taking place inside the AR camp or A-B Kremas. They cannot evidence millions of Jews being liberated at the end of the war. Academics who fall for, or promote conspiracy theories, lose their academic credibility. The liberation of the western camps, and the horrific neglect of Jewish prisoners, who were civilians, not soldiers, proved the contempt the Nazis had for the Jews. That evidences motive and opportunity, whereby the Nazis saw even Jewish civilians as the enemy, to be destroyed. Since the Nazis were capable of such neglect, the evidence of mass murder was obviously believable. That the primary death camps were in the east is no shock. The Western Allies took a sceptical view of claims of death camps inside Germany and due to the lack of evidence, dismissed those claims as false. That the Soviets were poor at gathering and preserving evidence, is no surprise. They tried and ultimately failed a hoax about the Katyn Massacre, so it is obvious they were not organised enough to hoax multiple death camps that killed millions. Then there is all the missing Jews. If millions of Jews had not been murdered, then where were they in 1945? The 6 million figure was one of a number of figures used. It has merely become the most commonly used figure. In 1945, the single largest liberation of a camp, was Bergen-Belsen, with c60,000 prisoners, not all of whom were Jewish. Only a few hundred thousand Jews were liberated by the western Allies, far fewer by the Soviets. Villages, towns and cities all over Europe, that had sizeable Jewish populations before the war, were left with few, if any. Instead, of dispossessed Jews returning home, their homes, businesses and property went mostly unclaimed. Nazis admitted to murdering them. Deniers argue they have mundane explanations, historians argue they have homicidal explanations. Deniers cannot evidence their explanations happening, historians can. You have lied that there was zero verifiable evidence of gas chambers. There were multiple witnesses and corroborating evidence from other sources to prove mass gassings. That alleged gas chambers at the camps in Germany were all investigated and dismissed, is evidence the early investigations were being thorough. Majdanek was an example of an existing gas chamber for delousing, that was also used for people. That the original plans for the Kremas do not show gas chambers, corroborates other evidence they were converted during the construction period. Note that you have failed to provide any evidence as to what did happen inside the Kremas. Instead, all you do is doubt they were used for gassings. There is a Hitler Order for the euthanasia programme, which, when made public, had to be cancelled. The staff from that programme all went to work at the AR camps. There is ample documentary evidence for the mass shootings in the east, whereby how many were shot is recorded. The records from the AR camps were destroyed. The totals at A-B can be discerned by subtracting the numbers selected to work from the arrivals. That historians change their minds, as evidence is found, is normal for history. When a historian interprets history and then evidence is found that contradicts that interpretation, the historian will change position. That historians debate how the Final Solution was planned, is evidence of the robust study of the subject, and it contradicts denier suggestions of a conspiracy to hide what did happen and promote a false narrative. There is no document that uses the term Final Solution, that is at odds with the historical interpretation of that term. That is a perfectly normal and to be expected progression. Early reports are confused, and mostly based on secondary sources. When the war ends, a more detailed examination and gathering of the evidence is now possible. Eyewintesses are traced and a much more accurate narrative is established. That the eyewintesses are flawed, is again, normal for eyewintess evidence. You constantly confuse eyewitness with non eyewitness evidence, which further increases your puzzlement. It is bizarre that you cannot understand an eyewintess is someone who saw what they speak about with their own eyes, and other witnesses, who did not see what they speak about, provide hearsay and circumstantial evidence. What you call fatal flaws, are just normal, well known, often studied and understood flaws in witness evidence, due to memory failures and that we are all poor at estimating time, distance and sizes. There was a lot of doubt that the otherwise civilised Germans were capable of mass murder, many of the earliest reports were dismissed. It is also not clear what the Allies could do about the death camps, other than to win the war as quickly as possible. There was minimal resistance by the Germans and Japanese to their identification, arrest and internment. The Allies told them they were going to be resettled in camps and that they would be safe. The Nazis said the same to the Jews and even as rumours spread of mass murder, enough people did not believe them, that the Nazis could continue with their policy. There were also enough Jews willing to cooperate with the Nazis, that they could maintain the charade of resettlement, until it was too late to do anythign about it. Just because you do not believe it could have happened, does not therefore mean it did not happen. Site examinations of the AR camps have found large areas of cremated identifiable human remains and ash from wood and bodies. There is evidence of wood deliveries to the AR camps for construction, so it would nto be difficult to get wood delovered for the pyres. Your arguments from incredulity are logical fallacies. You have no evidence as to what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 2, 2023 4:02:53 GMT
What's so funny about you is that you whine about how revisionists rely solely on their "beliefs" no matter how well-sourced yet your posts are FULL of unsubstantiated assertions. Rarely do you even try to back any of it up.
You are so ill-informed. Cite this "overwhelming evidence" that you claim existed in 1945. You'd have to extend that to 1946 to get most of Nuremberg and Hoess confession. In 1945, what did they have? The Soviet report on Auschwitz?
Historians reached a consensus? No, they didn't, and certainly not in 1945. Harry Elmer Barnes was a historian. James J. Martin was a historian. David Hoggan was a historian. And they were better credentialed than Hilberg and Reitlinger. The holocaust histories and literature were mostly published by Jewish writers and their works were not published by prominent presses until years later.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 2, 2023 4:17:06 GMT
Nessie:
This is rich. Here's what I actually said.
I said they found no verifiable gas chambers. Then Nessie misquotes and distorts my statement, then calls me a liar, and then says that there were "witnesses" that prove the gas chambers. Even if these witnesses of yours were legit, that still wouldn't be an example of a "verifiable gas chamber."
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 2, 2023 8:59:22 GMT
What's so funny about you is that you whine about how revisionists rely solely on their "beliefs" no matter how well-sourced yet your posts are FULL of unsubstantiated assertions. Rarely do you even try to back any of it up. That is a lie. I link to witnesses, documents, photos, archaeological reports and explain the circumstantial evidence constantly. I have previously explained that what the Allies had in 1945, was that they had liberated camps, with the Jewish prisoners in a worse condition than any other prisoner, which proved the Nazi contempt and disregard for Jews. That made the Jewish witness claims of mass murder more believable. It was strong circumstantial evidence, which was further corroborated by the millions of missing Jews. In 1945, the Allies found hardly any Jews left, a few thousand here and there in some camps, but that was it. That fits with claims of mass killings. The AR camps were evidenced by the Soviet Reports were backed up by Polish reports, where, in 1945, they did far more thorough site examinations of the AR camp sites, finding witnesses and large areas of cremated remains and obvious signs of a cover-up. As for A-B, the Allies had the 1943 Witold Report and in 1944 the Vrba-Wetzler Report. By the end of 1945, they also had the evidence from Topf & Sons for the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas. The Allies were sceptical of claims being made, hence many claims about gas chambers in camps in Germany were dismissed, but in Poland, the situation was very different. The Allies also had the Einsatzgruppen OSRs in 1945, which proved mass shootings, so why would they not use mass gassing elsewhere? The Nazis euthanasia project had previously become public knowledge, so killing undesirables was part of Nazi policy. Most historians, along with pretty much everyone else with any official status, had reached a consensus that there was very strong evidence to prove Nazi mass murder of the Jews. The next decades involved millions of hours of research, evidence gathering and interviews, all of which confirmed the mass murder claims. The evidence favoured Hilberg and Reitlinger. Barnes etc could not produce evidence as to what did happen, if it was not mass murders. Your suggestion of some sort of Jewish conspiracy, ignores the many non Jewish historians, in particular the Germans and Poles, who also followed the evidence to conclude mass gassings happened.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 2, 2023 9:07:09 GMT
Nessie: This is rich. Here's what I actually said. I said they found no verifiable gas chambers. Then Nessie misquotes and distorts my statement, then calls me a liar, and then says that there were "witnesses" that prove the gas chambers. Even if these witnesses of yours were legit, that still wouldn't be an example of a "verifiable gas chamber."
By verifiable gas chambers, you clearly mean intact gas chamber, left perfectly preserved, so you can visit it. There is no surprise that the gas chambers at the AR camps were demolished and covered over. The gas chambers at A-B were either demolished (Kremas IV, V and the Bunkers) or converted to another use (Krema I) or blown up (Kremas II and III). That they were not intact, does not mean they were not verifiable. The Allies had the evidence of the modifications of the A-B Kremas, to prove gas chambers. Other places were used as gas chambers, such as the delousing chambers at Majdanek.
Typically for a denier, you are trying to create a false impression of a lack of evidence for gassings, to deflect from your total lack of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 3, 2023 6:21:33 GMT
Nessie: This is rich. Here's what I actually said. I said they found no verifiable gas chambers. Then Nessie misquotes and distorts my statement, then calls me a liar, and then says that there were "witnesses" that prove the gas chambers. Even if these witnesses of yours were legit, that still wouldn't be an example of a "verifiable gas chamber." By verifiable gas chambers, you clearly mean intact gas chamber, left perfectly preserved, so you can visit it. There is no surprise that the gas chambers at the AR camps were demolished and covered over. The gas chambers at A-B were either demolished (Kremas IV, V and the Bunkers) or converted to another use (Krema I) or blown up (Kremas II and III). That they were not intact, does not mean they were not verifiable. The Allies had the evidence of the modifications of the A-B Kremas, to prove gas chambers. Other places were used as gas chambers, such as the delousing chambers at Majdanek.
Typically for a denier, you are trying to create a false impression of a lack of evidence for gassings, to deflect from your total lack of evidence.
The Allies claimed to have found several intact gas chambers. Mauthausen for example. Are you defending those gas chambers or not?
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Mar 3, 2023 6:51:38 GMT
That is a lie. I link to witnesses, documents, photos, archaeological reports and explain the circumstantial evidence constantly. You make yourself look stupid when you call people "liars" all the time simply for not agreeing with you. Especially when you are manipulating and misquoting the statements of others in the same breath. Did it ever occur you that maybe not everyone agrees with you and maybe your "overwhelming evidence" isn't as impressive as you think it is? Witnesses. You post lists of names that you copied from someone else without any quotations or summaries and with zero analysis. When you are challenged on the actual content of the testimonies you clam up or lapse into your usual routine. Archaeological reports? You mean like that UNDERGRAD college paper you linked that one time that contained no archaeological data?
|
|
๐๐๐จ๐ญ๐ญ
๐ฆ
๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ฎ๐ฌ
Posts: 209
|
Post by ๐๐๐จ๐ญ๐ญ on Mar 3, 2023 8:17:11 GMT
Lipstadt will not debate Deniers because she is a faith-based theologian,... It is denial that is faith based. That is why your posts do not have any evidence as to what did happen instead of gassings. I don't know why you would say that. I have been supplying original research for the last twenty years at my own pace. Unlike Hoaxsters, nobody pays us or gives us cushy careers doing so. For example, from DenierBud's short video (below) about Allied spook agencies hoaxing up the atrocity tale, OSS agent Lt. Jack H. Taylor (USN) of Hollywood, California โ who is today credited as the first U.S. Navy SEAL โ is featured on newsreel cameras reading from a psych-warfare script upon the Liberation of Mauthausen claiming that his buddies were gassed. Taylor got captured in Austria as a spy and was transferred to Mauthausen as the Soviets rolled towards Vienna. Taylor was only at the Mauthausen camp for about a month when it was Liberated on May 5, 1945 by the Americans. He claims (with a smirk for the movie camera) that they just hadn't gotten around to gassing him yet. I don't doubt that OSS agents were executed at Mauthausen, but I doubt any of them were gassed โ let alone in rooms adjacent to the crematories disguised as SHOWERS. Here is a photo of OSS Taylor showing the newsreels how the Zyklon-B gas-generator worked at Mauthausen. I am not sure why he looks so different here, but all the photo captions for this picture that I have found say that the guy kneeling is Taylor. If this Zyklon-B generator or gasifier looks familiar, it is. Look at the diagram labelled part no. 4 Zyklongenerator ( Vergaser) on page 40 of the following article. Such diagrams of real Zyklon-B gas chambers were published in various Zyklon fumigation manuals in Germany and the United States since before the war. Here is an article from a pre-war German professional journal called Anzeiger fรผr Schรคdlingskunde ( Pest Science Monitor) that is still publishing today as Journal of Pest Science, penned by the well-known chemist and fumigation expert, Dr. Gerhard Peters. (I had the link to it and many others featured in the Reference area on the old RODOH forum before it crashed when our webmaster was imprisoned.) Dr. Gerhard Peters, "Durchgasung von Eisenbahnwagen mit Blausรคure." (Gassing of railway wagons with hydrocyanic acid.)
Anzeiger fรผr Schรคdlingskunde (Pest Science Monitor) Volume 13 : Issue 3 (March 1937), pp 35โ41.LINKAlso, check out the little R2D2 style vacuum cleaner unit on page 38 that blows warm HCN into a railroad car for fumigation. Wow, a lot slicker than Robert Jan van Pelt's wire-mesh Zyklon-B insertion columns that never existed, huh. Some of these guys need to leave the engineering to the real engineers. Now, sure, you could kill people this way, but that is not how the lie-witnesses told the story. They didn't know better because at best they were "evidencing" hearsay, rumors and propaganda. And note that none of the supposed gassed corpses claimed by the witnesses was ever said to exhibit that inconvenient cherry-red color. Yeah, so, what Hoaxsters did is take stuff like steam autoclaves at laundries, and fumigation chemicals and equipment found at camps, and try to make homicidal gassing tales out of it. And it's not just a few prisoners executed in closets or showers but MILLIONS. Here is Jack Taylor in his Navy Lt. Commander's uniform testifying after the war at Nuremberg. Note also on page 41 of the article that they show a VACUUM chamber which is used to help disinfest foodstuffs like bags of grain using less chemicals. Remember that there were also homicidal vacuum chamber claims made about Nazi Death Camps. Oh dear. Below is the Nuremberg prosecutor and future U.S. Senator Thomas Dodd (D-CT) at Nuremberg with his friend, Yorick โ a Nazi Shrunken Head. 
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 3, 2023 9:37:20 GMT
By verifiable gas chambers, you clearly mean intact gas chamber, left perfectly preserved, so you can visit it. There is no surprise that the gas chambers at the AR camps were demolished and covered over. The gas chambers at A-B were either demolished (Kremas IV, V and the Bunkers) or converted to another use (Krema I) or blown up (Kremas II and III). That they were not intact, does not mean they were not verifiable. The Allies had the evidence of the modifications of the A-B Kremas, to prove gas chambers. Other places were used as gas chambers, such as the delousing chambers at Majdanek.
Typically for a denier, you are trying to create a false impression of a lack of evidence for gassings, to deflect from your total lack of evidence.
The Allies claimed to have found several intact gas chambers. Mauthausen for example. Are you defending those gas chambers or not? I will defend the gas chambers that subsequent enquiry has established to have existed, Mauthausen being one of them.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 3, 2023 9:47:15 GMT
That is a lie. I link to witnesses, documents, photos, archaeological reports and explain the circumstantial evidence constantly. You make yourself look stupid when you call people "liars" all the time simply for not agreeing with you. Especially when you are manipulating and misquoting the statements of others in the same breath. Did it ever occur you that maybe not everyone agrees with you and maybe your "overwhelming evidence" isn't as impressive as you think it is? You lied that my posts are full of assertions and there is a lack of verifiable evidence for gas chambers. The evidence for gassings is overwhelming and you are the one who asserts and lies. Your assertions and lying is why you have fooled yourself into thinking the evidence for gassings is not impressive. That is another lie. I have spent a long time going through witness evidence, most of which I provide because they cannot, with numerous people on this forum. The denier challenges over that witness evidence consists of claims the witnesses are to incredible to believe, therefore they are lying. The challenges follow the same format time after time. Hence my usual routine of pointing out the logical flaws in those challenges. There you do again. You are trying to suggest I have produced just one paper, as you try to create a false impression of a lack of evidence. You have ignored all the other work and concentrated on the weakest of all the reports. You are only fooling yourself when you do that. Here are all the archaeological studies that I can find online; www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=32919&sid=bf1bd8f42623f919a06561acbdbc0fb7Numerous archaeologists, from different countries, in different studies, using various methodologies and they all reach the same conclusion, the AR camp sites contain large areas of cremated buried remains.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 3, 2023 9:57:52 GMT
It is denial that is faith based. That is why your posts do not have any evidence as to what did happen instead of gassings. I don't know why you would say that. I have been supplying original research for the last twenty years at my own pace.... ....Note also on page 41 of the article that they show a VACUUM chamber which is used to help disinfest foodstuffs like bags of grain using less chemicals. Remember that there were also homicidal vacuum chamber claims made about vacuum chambers. Oh dear.... ....Below is the Nuremberg prosecutor and future U.S. Senator Thomas Dodd (D-CT) at Nuremberg with his friend, Yorick โ a Nazi Shrunken Head.  I have chopped your post, but what I have left examples why your claims are wrong. You cherry-pick the flawed, already dismissed evidence, such as use of vacuums and shrunken heads. Historians do not use that evidence to prove gas chambers.
The use of vacuum was established as hearsay rumour. It only gets referenced when explaining the history of establishing the history of the Holocaust and how historians worked their way through the evidence, to find out what happened. Deniers obsess over that history, not understanding that historians are just doing their jobs, of verifying what did happen and dismissing unevidenced rumours.
The shrunken head only appears, again, in the history of how the Holocaust was investigated and how atrocity story from actual event were determined. That head was not used to convict anyone, nor is it used to evidence mass murders.
Like Gibson and his comment about an undergraduate paper, you find and obsess over the weakest, non evidence, as you ignore the far stronger evidence, to support your disbeliefs. The result is that you fool yourself.
|
|
๐๐๐จ๐ญ๐ญ
๐ฆ
๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ฎ๐ฌ
Posts: 209
|
Post by ๐๐๐จ๐ญ๐ญ on Mar 5, 2023 8:25:27 GMT
I don't know why you would say that. I have been supplying original research for the last twenty years at my own pace.... ....Note also on page 41 of the article that they show a VACUUM chamber which is used to help disinfest foodstuffs like bags of grain using less chemicals. Remember that there were also homicidal vacuum chamber claims made about vacuum chambers. Oh dear.... ....Below is the Nuremberg prosecutor and future U.S. Senator Thomas Dodd (D-CT) at Nuremberg with his friend, Yorick โ a Nazi Shrunken Head.  I have chopped your post, but what I have left examples why your claims are wrong. You cherry-pick the flawed, already dismissed evidence, such as use of vacuums and shrunken heads. Historians do not use that evidence to prove gas chambers.
I think you're missing the point, Nessie. Historians used atrocity-propaganda to "settle the science," so to speak โ and now it is just a tautology. They never tired to "prove" gaschambers with anything resembling evidence or analysis. They just took "notice" of it as though it were the truth directly from the mouth of the Pope. That is why it is so awkward when we actually do a hard look at this "evidence." The shrunken head only appears, again, in the history of how the Holocaust was investigated and how atrocity story from actual event were determined. That head was not used to convict anyone, nor is it used to evidence mass murders.
Why don't you look at that short DenierBud video again, Nessie. At Minute 1:50 the Nuremberg prosecutor and future United States Senator Thomas Dodd, in his God-awful Connecticut accent, beseeches the court to watch a video about the Liberation of the Concentration Camps. Then a motion picture screen drops down in the courtroom and they are shown a film of the Nazi Concentration Camps. They don't even try to put any of this into context. Don't tell me nonsense like the shrunken heads did not convict anyone. It still shapes the narrative even today. That is why laws were passed and are enforced against investigating it, a least if you are skeptical and actually want to look at what they were using for evidence. The Big-H is based upon psychological warfare, not evidence. That is the least of things the Nazi Death Mills narrative is based on. Hundreds of billions of dollars or more is spent memorializing these mass-murder claims in the Western world today by interests which wish to keep Holocaust mythology active, and old World War II psychological warfare relevant. They don't give a fig about real history or evidence.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Mar 5, 2023 9:03:41 GMT
I have chopped your post, but what I have left examples why your claims are wrong. You cherry-pick the flawed, already dismissed evidence, such as use of vacuums and shrunken heads. Historians do not use that evidence to prove gas chambers.
I think you're missing the point, Nessie. Historians used atrocity-propaganda to "settle the science," so to speak โ and now it is just a tautology. They never tired to "prove" gaschambers with anything resembling evidence or analysis. They just took "notice" of it as though it were the truth directly from the mouth of the Pope. Historians identified the atrocity propaganda and then traced contemporaneous eyewitness evidence, from those who were at the AR camps and inside the Kremas, and documents, images, forensics and archaeology that directly pertains to those places. It is that evidence which is used to prove mass murder. Your idea of a hard look, is to list your excuses as to why you do not believe the evidence, as if your belief determines what actually happened. When you are asked to prove evidence as to what did happen, you cannot do so. The condition of liberated Jewish prisoners and evidence of Nazi cruelty, is part of the circumstantial evidence of a Nazi plan to get rid of the Jews. It also proves motive and opportunity. You spend your time pouring over the propaganda and then fail to see the elephant in the room, which is the lack of any evidence as to an alternative, which involves millions of Jews not being killed, but instead surviving Nazi custody till the end of the war.
|
|