Evidence proves historians are correct.

[Nessie]

Archie states;

Saying that you are right because such and such "is evidenced" is too generic.

But, that is how we establish history, with evidence. If it is suggested that a historical event did not take place, but revised histories are not evidenced, then the evidenced history wins.

That also applies to medicine, criminal investigation and the sciences. Evidenced theories beat unevidenced hypothesis. Evidenced accusations beat unevidenced accusations. Evidence wins.

So-called revisionists do not like evidencing, because the evidence is against them, so they try to argue and hate having their evidential failures pointed out to them.

[Stubble]

Schrodinger's evidence?

Nessie, if the evidence is so explicit and damning, where is it?

You've got holes in the orthodox narrative large enough for the USS Liberty to use as a port of call that you fill in with the god of the gaps.

Evidence proves the holocaust, but also, lack of evidence proves the holocaust, simultaneously.

It is an odd position you have chosen to set up on and defend.

This is not, for example, the hill I would have chosen to die on.

[Archie]

"The Holocaust is true because reasons"

[Archie]

I am not against you presenting evidence. In fact, I am insisting that you present evidence instead of claiming to have all this evidence and never delivering.

If you had a good case, you would present the argumentation and support for your position and, if it were convincing, this would naturally lead to your conclusion. What you do is SHOUT YOUR CONCLUSIONS over and over while collapsing into vaguery and repetition when challenged.

[Nessie]

Schrodinger's evidence?

Nessie, if the evidence is so explicit and damning, where is it?

You get show it constantly, then you shrug it off and pretend there is a lack of evidence.

You've got holes in the orthodox narrative large enough for the USS Liberty to use as a port of call that you fill in with the god of the gaps.

Rubbish. All the major holes are with so-called revisionism.

Evidence proves the holocaust, but also, lack of evidence proves the holocaust, simultaneously.

It is an odd position you have chosen to set up on and defend.

This is not, for example, the hill I would have chosen to die on.

You just made that position up, straw man fallacy. I am not surprised you chose to die on a logical fallacy.

[Nessie]

"The Holocaust is true because reasons"

Straw man fallacy, which you rely on, because you cannot dispute the Holocaust is true, because of the evidence which proves it happened.

[Nessie]

I am not against you presenting evidence. In fact, I am insisting that you present evidence instead of claiming to have all this evidence and never delivering.

If you had a good case, you would present the argumentation and support for your position and, if it were convincing, this would naturally lead to your conclusion. What you do is SHOUT YOUR CONCLUSIONS over and over while collapsing into vaguery and repetition when challenged.

Ironically, you are being vague and not evidencing your claim.

[Stubble]

Schrodinger's evidence?

Nessie, if the evidence is so explicit and damning, where is it?

You get show it constantly, then you shrug it off and pretend there is a lack of evidence.

You've got holes in the orthodox narrative large enough for the USS Liberty to use as a port of call that you fill in with the god of the gaps.

Rubbish. All the major holes are with so-called revisionism.

Evidence proves the holocaust, but also, lack of evidence proves the holocaust, simultaneously.

It is an odd position you have chosen to set up on and defend.

This is not, for example, the hill I would have chosen to die on.

You just made that position up, straw man fallacy. I am not surprised you chose to die on a logical fallacy.

Is this like your swimming pools claim Nessie?

Or is it more like the wannsee minutes?

[Nessie]

...

You just made that position up, straw man fallacy. I am not surprised you chose to die on a logical fallacy.

Is this like your swimming pools claim Nessie?

Or is it more like the wannsee minutes?

Where you nit pick and try and score debate points, because you have no evidence?

[Stubble]

You are big mad, aren't you.

Let's look at Auschwitz Birkenau for a moment, over 1,000,000 people are said to have been murdered there. There is no murder weapon and the evidence is not congruent with the alleged method of body disposal.

You have, no direct physical evidence. Nothing tangible.

You have missing persons, that you assume were murdered in homicidal gas chambers, and you have people who claim impossible things happened to the missing persons.

Since all of the stories share a couple of details, that's good enough for you.

That's not good enough for me.

[Wahrheitssucher]

You are bit mad, aren't you.

Let's look at Auschwitz Birkenau for a moment, over 1,000,000 people are said to have been murdered there. There is no murder weapon and the evidence is not congruent with the alleged method of body disposal.

You have, no direct physical evidence. Nothing tangible.

You have missing persons, that you assume were murdered in homicidal gas chambers, and you have people who claim impossible things happened to the missing persons.

Since all of the stories share a couple of details, that's good enough for you.

That's not good enough for me.

Well said!

[HansHill]

You have, no direct physical evidence. Nothing tangible.

B-b-but maybe the walls were blue we just can't see them! Also the walls totally weren't blue and here's my coping mechanism as to why.

These people, man.

[Nessie]

You are big mad, aren't you.

Let's look at Auschwitz Birkenau for a moment, over 1,000,000 people are said to have been murdered there. There is no murder weapon....

Yes there is, the proven gas chambers. Evidence from documents, eyewitnesses, forensics and circumstances here;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

... and the evidence is not congruent with the alleged method of body disposal.

Yes it is, how the corpses were cremated here, with evidence from the Topf & Sons engineers;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61650

You have, no direct physical evidence. Nothing tangible.

There are the ruins of the gas chambers, the only buildings to have been demolished, which is evidence of a criminal cover up. Physical evidence has been recovered from the ruins, such as part of a gas mask and a shower head;

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/museum/new ... u-,81.html

You have missing persons, that you assume were murdered in homicidal gas chambers,

No, there is evidence as to where and when they went missing and that they were murdered.

...and you have people who claim impossible things happened to the missing persons.

You are cherry picking mistakes, hyperbole and estimations from witnesses, that fail to take into account memory and recall failings, to craft illogical arguments from incredulity.

Since all of the stories share a couple of details, that's good enough for you.

That's not good enough for me.

You have lied about and misrepresented the evidence.

[Nessie]

You have, no direct physical evidence. Nothing tangible.

B-b-but maybe the walls were blue we just can't see them! Also the walls totally weren't blue and here's my coping mechanism as to why.

These people, man.

In reality, we do not know which or if any Leichenkeller walls turned blue and why that was. You make a big deal out of that, to support the arguments you rely on, because you have no evidence to produce a chronology of events for the Kremas and two farm houses.

[Keen]

Archie states;

Saying that you are right because such and such "is evidenced" is too generic.

But, that is how we establish history, with evidence. If it is suggested that a historical event did not take place, but revised histories are not evidenced, then the evidenced history wins.

That also applies to medicine, criminal investigation and the sciences. Evidenced theories beat unevidenced hypothesis. Evidenced accusations beat unevidenced accusations. Evidence wins.

So-called revisionists do not like evidencing, because the evidence is against them, so they try to argue and hate having their evidential failures pointed out to them.

CONCLUSION / STATEMENT OF FACT: It can be, and Greg Gerdes has, using legal standards applied in U.S. courts, PROVEN that the above mentioned “huge mass grave discoveries” are fraudulent charades, the Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II mass murder / holocaust allegations are false, and the orthodox holocaust story did not happen as alleged.

NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - PROVES - NO MASS MURDER

Additionally, and independent of any other reward offered on this website, a reward of - $5,000.00 - will be remitted to anyone who can refute the above conclusion / statement of fact in a publicized debate against Greg Gerdes. Rules are essentially the same as those for the other challenges on this site. Contact Greg Gerdes for details.

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

Looks like Mr. Gerdes' proof trumps Nessies "evidence."

If only Nessie could muster the courage to debate Mr. Gerdes. But of course, even if he could, there is nothing he can do about the fact that Mr. Gerdes has a MUCH higher IQ than Nessie. Poor Nessie wouldn't stand a chance against Mr. Gerdes, and Nessie knows it.