On the Nessie Question (NQ lol)

[Wahrheitssucher]

…Nessie …may be retired, or semiretired.

or maybe disabled. [I’m serious]

…with Nessie and Bombsaway, there is no debate anyway. They are absolutely sure the official narrative happened as described.

Yes. They do not appear to be here to actually discuss intelligently and honestly.

[Nessie]

...

His arguments are weak and he is easily pummeled, and this being an internet venue, everyone with an active internet connection can ostensibly see it.

Interesting that you say "argument" not "evidence". You still do not get that history is evidenced, not argued.

How useful he is for generating actual good content is another matter. He brings little to actual debate. Still he always returns though.

I bring 99% of the evidence used. That is because you have so little evidence to back up your claims. We recently discussed the evidence for mass graves, to which you brought no archaeological or geophysical reports, or eyewitness or other form of evidence. From that zero evidence, you expect me to believe that the ground in the southern end of TII is largely undisturbed, with 4 pits that may contain corpses.

Where you used evidence, it was evidence I sourced.

Personally, I'm considering moving away from the debate board in general and leaving it to him and new fish, and trying to spend time helping others in the research section and posting progress finding missing jews, researching operation todt infrastructure and getting a head count in and out of the zoo of camps the German Government operated under the National Socialist Governments tenure.

That seems like it would be a better use of my time than basically shitposting in the debate section.

I mean, with Nessie and Bombsaway, there is no debate anyway. They are absolutely sure the official narrative happened as described.

The debate should always centre around evidence. It would be good if you did some research and gathered some evidence. Camp populations and transport movements would be great place to start. When you finally accept that there is evidence of over a million people being sent to the AR camps and no evidence the vast majority left and that the camp population by 1945 had dwindled to only a few hundred thousand Jews, you see that the official narrative stands.

[HansHill]

...

His arguments are weak and he is easily pummeled, and this being an internet venue, everyone with an active internet connection can ostensibly see it.

Interesting that you say "argument" not "evidence". You still do not get that history is evidenced, not argued.

Saying "your evidence is weak" is redundant and unnecessary.

[Nessie]

...

His arguments are weak and he is easily pummeled, and this being an internet venue, everyone with an active internet connection can ostensibly see it.

Interesting that you say "argument" not "evidence". You still do not get that history is evidenced, not argued.

Saying "your evidence is weak" is redundant and unnecessary.

You are missing the point. He talks about argument, rather than evidence, because so-called revisionism is dependent on argument, rather than evidence. For example, eyewitnesses who worked at the AR camps, so-called revisionists cannot produce a single one.