Comments on other threads.

[Keen]

The Holocaust has been proven by solid tangible evidence.

Liar.

BELZEC, CHELMNO, PONARY, SOBIBOR and TREBLINKA II

Are the remains of 2.145 million Jews really buried in the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass graves?

(The labeling of asking this simple question as “hate / antisemitic” is your first clue that they do not want you to know what the answer is.)

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational question: Is it reasonable to doubt the veracity of the orthodox history that has fraudulently been “proven” by so-called “Holocaust archaelogists” - Yes. - or - No. - ??

...

A - $100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 100 alleged graves / cremation pits in question that is proven - with the same standard of proof applied in U. S. civil courts - to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of - at least 2 people. (That is less than one tenth of one one thousandth of one percent of the alleged mass murder.)

...

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Eye of Zyclone]

Again, history is not revised by argument. Zundel and his lawyer, had some successes with the arguments they put forward during the trial, but at no point did they produce any evidence to revise the history and prove a new narrative.

Fortunately, propaganda stories are not regarded as true unless replaced with an alternative narrative. Propaganda stories are regarded as demonizing lies unless proven true by solid tangible evidence, and the Holocaust was admittedly never proven true by solid tangible evidence (hence the whole "top secrecy and post facto destruction of evidence" narrative concoted and repeated ad nauseam by Holohoax conspiracy theorists). For instance, today's historians regard as untrue the atrocity story of Belgian kids whose hands had been cut off by German soldiers during WW1 because the Allies failed to find a single Belgian kid with missing hands after WW1. No alternative narrative needed. Just a big propaganda lie made up to demonize the enemy and fuel the Allied war effort.

The Holocaust has been proven by solid tangible evidence. It would be easy to fake a story about children having their hands cut off, and easy to evidence it did not happen, by not finding any with missing hands. It is impossible to fake something the size of the Holocaust and not find evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

No, it hasn't and you know it.

With so many children working in factories back then, finding some children with a missing hand after WW1 would have been quite easy. But it still wouldn't have proved that their missing hands had been cut off by German soldiers during the war anyway.

Not finding evidence of millions of Jews alive and liberated in 1945 was a breeze. The victors just needed to assert that six million Jews had gone missing. Was more than enough to make it become a "fact of common knowledge" (sic) because victors never lie, do they?

The same happened with the Irving trial, for example, Vrba's concession he had mixed hearsay with what he saw. Despite all of Irving's years of study and research, he could not produce an eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas, who stated they had a purpose other than gassings. That would have been a genuine revision.

No, that would have proved nothing. Testimonies are just series of words devoid of any intrinsic probative value.

Would say that, if a witness who worked inside an AR camp, said it was a transit camp and it never had a gas chamber?

Of course, I would. Ditto for the millions of witnesses who talked about the Loch Ness monster, bigfoots, ghosts, aliens, trolls, chupacabras, angels, Marian apparitions, Kuwaiti babies removed from incubators, Jewish-fat Nazi soap, and the gas chambers of WW1.

And you, would you claim that Jews ritually murdered Christian kids to steal their blood ("blood libel") only because some Jews confessed it in courts?

Moreover all the workers who operated the KL crematories were camp inmates, most of them Jewish, that is, super biased Germanophobes who hated the Nazis beyond anything. Of course the most unreliable source of information (and the most prolific source of disinformation) in the world.

The majority of the eyewitnesses to the gassings, were German and Ukrainian SS. The majority of the corroborating evidence is from Nazi sources.

For understandable sanitary reasons, there were no Germans inside the Auschwitz Kremas during the war, when those facilities were full of contagious corpses.

And most of the former camp guards who falsely confessed the use of homicidal gas chambers at postwar show trials got ridiculously light prison sentences (some Jews bitterly complained about it a few years ago) as a reward for helping the victors of WW2 corroborate their propaganda lies with bogus 'evidence' like that produced at witch trials for centuries.

[Nessie]

Fortunately, propaganda stories are not regarded as true unless replaced with an alternative narrative. Propaganda stories are regarded as demonizing lies unless proven true by solid tangible evidence, and the Holocaust was admittedly never proven true by solid tangible evidence (hence the whole "top secrecy and post facto destruction of evidence" narrative concoted and repeated ad nauseam by Holohoax conspiracy theorists). For instance, today's historians regard as untrue the atrocity story of Belgian kids whose hands had been cut off by German soldiers during WW1 because the Allies failed to find a single Belgian kid with missing hands after WW1. No alternative narrative needed. Just a big propaganda lie made up to demonize the enemy and fuel the Allied war effort.

The Holocaust has been proven by solid tangible evidence. It would be easy to fake a story about children having their hands cut off, and easy to evidence it did not happen, by not finding any with missing hands. It is impossible to fake something the size of the Holocaust and not find evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

No, it hasn't and you know it.

With so many children working in factories back then, finding some children with a missing hand after WW1 would have been quite easy. But it still wouldn't have proved that their missing hands had been cut off by German soldiers during the war anyway.

How about hoaxing 6 million children, from all across Europe, having had their hands cut off, how easy would that be? How easy would it be to evidence it had not happened?

Not finding evidence of millions of Jews alive and liberated in 1945 was a breeze. The victors just needed to assert that six million Jews had gone missing. Was more than enough to make it become a "fact of common knowledge" (sic) because victors never lie, do they?

You forget about France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, the Balkan countries, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States. They all admit to assisting the Nazis. The majority of Jews killed were their citizens. Why would they hoax that?

No, that would have proved nothing. Testimonies are just series of words devoid of any intrinsic probative value.

Would you say that, if a witness who worked inside an AR camp, said it was a transit camp and it never had a gas chamber?

Of course, I would. Ditto for the millions of witnesses who talked about the Loch Ness monster, bigfoots, ghosts, aliens, trolls, chupacabras, angels, Marian apparitions, Kuwaiti babies removed from incubators, Jewish-fat Nazi soap, and the gas chambers of WW1.

If the SS camp staff from TII, all said the Jewish prisoners were lying and the camp was a transit camp, you would dismiss that? I say you are lying.

And you, would you claim that Jews ritually murdered Christian kids to steal their blood ("blood libel") only because some Jews confessed it in courts?

No. I would want corroborating evidence from a source independent of them. Just as the Jews from the camps are corroborated by the SS staff, documents, physical remains and circumstantial evidence.

Moreover all the workers who operated the KL crematories were camp inmates, most of them Jewish, that is, super biased Germanophobes who hated the Nazis beyond anything. Of course the most unreliable source of information (and the most prolific source of disinformation) in the world.

The majority of the eyewitnesses to the gassings, were German and Ukrainian SS. The majority of the corroborating evidence is from Nazi sources.

For understandable sanitary reasons, there were no Germans inside the Auschwitz Kremas during the war, when those facilities were full of contagious corpses.

Please prove that claim.

And most of the former camp guards who falsely confessed the use of homicidal gas chambers at postwar show trials got ridiculously light prison sentences (some Jews bitterly complained about it a few years ago) as a reward for helping the victors of WW2 corroborate their propaganda lies with bogus 'evidence' like that produced at witch trials for centuries.

You are now ridiculously claiming that both severe and light sentences are an incentive to confess to a crime they did not commit. It is clear you are just making up a story to suit your beliefs.

[Eye of Zyclone]

The Holocaust has been proven by solid tangible evidence. It would be easy to fake a story about children having their hands cut off, and easy to evidence it did not happen, by not finding any with missing hands. It is impossible to fake something the size of the Holocaust and not find evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

No, it hasn't and you know it.

With so many children working in factories back then, finding some children with a missing hand after WW1 would have been quite easy. But it still wouldn't have proved that their missing hands had been cut off by German soldiers during the war anyway.

How about hoaxing 6 million children, from all across Europe, having had their hands cut off, how easy would that be? How easy would it be to evidence it had not happened?

Evidence something did NOT happen is about proving a negative, a well-known logical fallacy. If the victors of WW1 had stuck to a lie of six million children having had their hands cut off by the Germans during the war by bringing bogus corroborating 'evidence' such as false testimonies by alleged witnesses and victims, false confessions by alleged perpetrators and pictures of children with missing hands, history books would portray that fictive atrocity as a proven fact in the historiography of the First World War. The post-WW1 downfall of the victors' propaganda lies was admittedly the reason why the victors of WW2 held Soviet-style show trials like the Nuremberg judicial farce after WW2.

Not finding evidence of millions of Jews alive and liberated in 1945 was a breeze. The victors just needed to assert that six million Jews had gone missing. Was more than enough to make it become a "fact of common knowledge" (sic) because victors never lie, do they?

You forget about France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, the Balkan countries, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States. They all admit to assisting the Nazis. The majority of Jews killed were their citizens. Why would they hoax that?

Half of the countries you mentioned fell in Soviet hands during WW2 and became Soviet dominions during the following 5 decades. And the other countries had no way to know what had happened to "their" deported Jews during WW2 anyway. How could they have known what had happened to the Jews who decided to go to Jew-occupied Palestine, the United States, British countries or elsewhere after WW2 instead of returning to countries that had handed them over to the Nazis during the war? Moreover many Jews were not "their citizens" as you claim. For instance, around 90% of the Jews who were in Belgium in 1938 were recent immigrants from antisemitic countries like Germany and Poland and they did not have Belgian citizenship. They had no strong ties to Belgium and so no good reasons to resettle in Belgium rather than in Palestine or the United States after WW2. The situation was very similar in all the countries of Western Europe.

Would you say that, if a witness who worked inside an AR camp, said it was a transit camp and it never had a gas chamber?

Of course, I would. Ditto for the millions of witnesses who talked about the Loch Ness monster, bigfoots, ghosts, aliens, trolls, chupacabras, angels, Marian apparitions, Kuwaiti babies removed from incubators, Jewish-fat Nazi soap, and the gas chambers of WW1.

If the SS camp staff from TII, all said the Jewish prisoners were lying and the camp was a transit camp, you would dismiss that? I say you are lying.

Say what you want to say. I don't care.

Again. Yes, I would dismiss that.

And you, would you claim that Jews ritually murdered Christian kids to steal their blood ("blood libel") only because some Jews confessed it in courts?

No. I would want corroborating evidence from a source independent of them. Just as the Jews from the camps are corroborated by the SS staff, documents, physical remains and circumstantial evidence.

A source independent from them like court testimonies, forensic reports and circumstancial evidence?

Here it is :


https://i.postimg.cc/NspJZ6yp/Blood-Libel-Trials.jpg

You're welcome.

The majority of the eyewitnesses to the gassings, were German and Ukrainian SS. The majority of the corroborating evidence is from Nazi sources.

For understandable sanitary reasons, there were no Germans inside the Auschwitz Kremas during the war, when those facilities were full of contagious corpses.

Please prove that claim.

A reverse burden of proof again. Prove some Nazis (camp guards) worked inside the Auschwitz crematoria during WW2. What was (were) his (their) name(s)?

And most of the former camp guards who falsely confessed the use of homicidal gas chambers at postwar show trials got ridiculously light prison sentences (some Jews bitterly complained about it a few years ago) as a reward for helping the victors of WW2 corroborate their propaganda lies with bogus 'evidence' like that produced at witch trials for centuries.

You are now ridiculously claiming that both severe and light sentences are an incentive to confess to a crime they did not commit. It is clear you are just making up a story to suit your beliefs.

No, I didn't say that. The risk of a heavy sentence and the promise of a light sentence are not mutually exclusive things. Both things are even the essence of what such a deal is all about. Not ridiculous. Such deals take place every day in all countries of the world.

[Nessie]

No, it hasn't and you know it.

With so many children working in factories back then, finding some children with a missing hand after WW1 would have been quite easy. But it still wouldn't have proved that their missing hands had been cut off by German soldiers during the war anyway.

How about hoaxing 6 million children, from all across Europe, having had their hands cut off, how easy would that be? How easy would it be to evidence it had not happened?

Evidence something did NOT happen is about proving a negative, a well-known logical fallacy.

Rubbish. For a start, so-called revisionists are trying to evidence there were no mass killings in gas chambers. Then it is possible to prove a negative, for example, mass gassings at Dachau. There is no evidence mass gassings took place, which proves there were no such gassings. As an example, say there was an allegation the British were gassing German internees on the Isle of Man. If German internees were interviewed and said they knew nothing about that and none of them had gone missing, and the place where the gassings were supposed to have happened was examined and it was a shower and documents accounted for all the internees, that would prove the claim was wrong. You clearly do not understand evidencing, or fallacies.

If the victors of WW1 had stuck to a lie of six million children having had their hands cut off by the Germans during the war by bringing bogus corroborating 'evidence' such as false testimonies by alleged witnesses and victims, false confessions by alleged perpetrators and pictures of children with missing hands, history books would portray that fictive atrocity as a proven fact in the historiography of the First World War. The post-WW1 downfall of the victors' propaganda lies was admittedly the reason why the victors of WW2 held Soviet-style show trials like the Nuremberg judicial farce after WW2.

Only a die hard conspiracists thinks it is possible to pull off such a hoax and maintain it. It would be impossible to not notice there is a complete lack of people who had their hands cut off, when there should be six million.

Not finding evidence of millions of Jews alive and liberated in 1945 was a breeze. The victors just needed to assert that six million Jews had gone missing. Was more than enough to make it become a "fact of common knowledge" (sic) because victors never lie, do they?

You forget about France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, the Balkan countries, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States. They all admit to assisting the Nazis. The majority of Jews killed were their citizens. Why would they hoax that?

Half of the countries you mentioned fell in Soviet hands during WW2 and became Soviet dominions during the following 5 decades. And the other countries had no way to know what had happened to "their" deported Jews during WW2 anyway. How could they have known what had happened to the Jews who decided to go to Jew-occupied Palestine, the United States, British countries or elsewhere after WW2 instead of returning to countries that had handed them over to the Nazis during the war? Moreover many Jews were not "their citizens" as you claim. For instance, around 90% of the Jews who were in Belgium in 1938 were recent immigrants from antisemitic countries like Germany and Poland and they did not have Belgian citizenship. They had no strong ties to Belgium and so no good reasons to resettle in Belgium rather than in Palestine or the United States after WW2. The situation was very similar in all the countries of Western Europe.

You have dodged my point that all of those countries admit to assisting the Nazis, when it is against their national interests to do that.

Historians have been able to trace all the displaced people from WWII and there is evidence of how many Jews moved to Palestine or the USA, which leaves one huge 6 million hole that no one, let along so-called revisionists can account for. You demand evidence they were killed, but are quite happy to believe they lived, with no evidence.

Of course, I would. Ditto for the millions of witnesses who talked about the Loch Ness monster, bigfoots, ghosts, aliens, trolls, chupacabras, angels, Marian apparitions, Kuwaiti babies removed from incubators, Jewish-fat Nazi soap, and the gas chambers of WW1.

If the SS camp staff from TII, all said the Jewish prisoners were lying and the camp was a transit camp, you would dismiss that? I say you are lying.

Say what you want to say. I don't care.

Again. Yes, I would dismiss that.

I do not believe you. Your lies and inventions are becoming even more ridiculous.

And you, would you claim that Jews ritually murdered Christian kids to steal their blood ("blood libel") only because some Jews confessed it in courts?

No. I would want corroborating evidence from a source independent of them. Just as the Jews from the camps are corroborated by the SS staff, documents, physical remains and circumstantial evidence.

A source independent from them like court testimonies, forensic reports and circumstancial evidence?

Here it is :


https://i.postimg.cc/NspJZ6yp/Blood-Libel-Trials.jpg

You're welcome.

There is no evidence in what you linked to. I would not prosecute based only on a confession.

For understandable sanitary reasons, there were no Germans inside the Auschwitz Kremas during the war, when those facilities were full of contagious corpses.

Please prove that claim.

A reverse burden of proof again. Prove some Nazis (camp guards) worked inside the Auschwitz crematoria during WW2. What was (were) his (their) name(s)?

It is your claim that no German worked inside the Kremas. Prove it. If you understood evidencing, you would know how to. For example, an order from Hoess that no SS were to enter the Kremas, or a statement from one of the SS, or a Jewish prisoner that only Jews worked inside the buildings. If you cannot find any such evidence, just admit that and that you made up your claim.

And most of the former camp guards who falsely confessed the use of homicidal gas chambers at postwar show trials got ridiculously light prison sentences (some Jews bitterly complained about it a few years ago) as a reward for helping the victors of WW2 corroborate their propaganda lies with bogus 'evidence' like that produced at witch trials for centuries.

You are now ridiculously claiming that both severe and light sentences are an incentive to confess to a crime they did not commit. It is clear you are just making up a story to suit your beliefs.

No, I didn't say that. The risk of a heavy sentence and the promise of a light sentence are not mutually exclusive things. Both things are even the essence of what such a deal is all about. Not ridiculous. Such deals take place every day in all countries of the world.

According to you, Nazis falsely confessed, whether they were given death, heavy or light sentences. You just come with ad hoc excuses to dismiss all the evidence you do not want to believe. You are just making things up!

[Keen]

You demand evidence they were killed, but are quite happy to believe they lived, with no evidence.

Yet another Roberto lie that there is no evidence that the jews who were transited through Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II were never killed at those sites.

Not only is there evidence, there is proof:

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Eye of Zyclone]

How about hoaxing 6 million children, from all across Europe, having had their hands cut off, how easy would that be? How easy would it be to evidence it had not happened?

Evidence something did NOT happen is about proving a negative, a well-known logical fallacy.

Rubbish. For a start, so-called revisionists are trying to evidence there were no mass killings in gas chambers. Then it is possible to prove a negative,

You have patently never read a single Holocaust revisionist book. Holocaust revisionists expose the technical impossibilities of the orthodox narrative, point out that there exists no such a thing as solid tangible evidence for the Holocaust, and demonstrate that the alleged "criminal traces" of the Holocaust are not what they're claimed to be. That's not what's called proving a negative. That's showing the emptiness and fragility of the Holocaust case.

for example, mass gassings at Dachau. There is no evidence mass gassings took place, which proves there were no such gassings.

Holohoaxers didn't drop the Dachau gas chamber story because it turned out that there was no evidence mass gassings took place in Dachau. They dropped it because it was becoming increasingly embarrassing (or "a cesspool of controversy" as they poetically put it back then) and so dangerous for the whole gas chamber myth. When they did that, they believed that the Iron Curtain would last for centuries and the bogus gas chambers of the Holocaust would be safe from scrutiny and exposure for a very long time behind it.

As an example, say there was an allegation the British were gassing German internees on the Isle of Man. If German internees were interviewed and said they knew nothing about that and none of them had gone missing, and the place where the gassings were supposed to have happened was examined and it was a shower and documents accounted for all the internees, that would prove the claim was wrong. You clearly do not understand evidencing, or fallacies.

... says a guy who opted for the name "Nessie" and whose avatar is a dubious blurry photo of the alleged Loch Ness monster!!!

And you clearly don't understand how "war crimes" show trials work and why they're held.
A feigned credulity as ridiculous as possible.

If the victors of WW1 had stuck to a lie of six million children having had their hands cut off by the Germans during the war by bringing bogus corroborating 'evidence' such as false testimonies by alleged witnesses and victims, false confessions by alleged perpetrators and pictures of children with missing hands, history books would portray that fictive atrocity as a proven fact in the historiography of the First World War. The post-WW1 downfall of the victors' propaganda lies was admittedly the reason why the victors of WW2 held Soviet-style show trials like the Nuremberg judicial farce after WW2.

Only a die hard conspiracists thinks it is possible to pull off such a hoax and maintain it. It would be impossible to not notice there is a complete lack of people who had their hands cut off, when there should be six million.

Having people state that they had talked to someone who saw it with their own eyes was more than enough to keep the hoax alive as long as necessary. And the endorsement of the hoax by authority figures like Lord Bryce easily turned that belief into a strong faith. Never underestimate the gullibility of average people.








https://i.postimg.cc/q4V2W8w6/WW1-Histo ... Sold-O.png

You forget about France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, the Balkan countries, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States. They all admit to assisting the Nazis. The majority of Jews killed were their citizens. Why would they hoax that?

Half of the countries you mentioned fell in Soviet hands during WW2 and became Soviet dominions during the following 5 decades. And the other countries had no way to know what had happened to "their" deported Jews during WW2 anyway. How could they have known what had happened to the Jews who decided to go to Jew-occupied Palestine, the United States, British countries or elsewhere after WW2 instead of returning to countries that had handed them over to the Nazis during the war? Moreover many Jews were not "their citizens" as you claim. For instance, around 90% of the Jews who were in Belgium in 1938 were recent immigrants from antisemitic countries like Germany and Poland and they did not have Belgian citizenship. They had no strong ties to Belgium and so no good reasons to resettle in Belgium rather than in Palestine or the United States after WW2. The situation was very similar in all the countries of Western Europe.

You have dodged my point that all of those countries admit to assisting the Nazis, when it is against their national interests to do that.

What does that have to do with what happened and didn't happen to Jews in the camps where they were deported to ???

And you dodged my point that the very numerous Jews who were in Western countries without having citizenship had no good reason(s) to return to countries that disliked them enough to assist the Nazis and help the latter to kick them out during WW2.

Historians have been able to trace all the displaced people from WWII and there is evidence of how many Jews moved to Palestine or the USA, which leaves one huge 6 million hole that no one, let along so-called revisionists can account for. You demand evidence they were killed, but are quite happy to believe they lived, with no evidence.

That's a lie. No historian could of course trace the over 40 million people displaced by war in Europe alone from 1939 to 1945. That's a grotesque bluff.

Too bad the "evidence" of how many Jews moved to Palestine or the USA was provided by the ardent Zionists who headed "Israel" and the United States back then. They of course had very good reasons to lie and downplay those numbers. If some pro-Hamas officials claimed tomorrow that 1.1 million Palestinians vanished in Gaza since October 2023, would you regard it as a hard fact proven by an impartial source?

No. I would want corroborating evidence from a source independent of them. Just as the Jews from the camps are corroborated by the SS staff, documents, physical remains and circumstantial evidence.

A source independent from them like court testimonies, forensic reports and circumstancial evidence?

Here it is :


https://i.postimg.cc/NspJZ6yp/Blood-Libel-Trials.jpg

You're welcome.

There is no evidence in what you linked to. I would not prosecute based only on a confession.

Who's the denier now?

You are now ridiculously claiming that both severe and light sentences are an incentive to confess to a crime they did not commit. It is clear you are just making up a story to suit your beliefs.

No, I didn't say that. The risk of a heavy sentence and the promise of a light sentence are not mutually exclusive things. Both things are even the essence of what such a deal is all about. Not ridiculous. Such deals take place every day in all countries of the world.

According to you, Nazis falsely confessed, whether they were given death, heavy or light sentences. You just come with ad hoc excuses to dismiss all the evidence you do not want to believe. You are just making things up!

No accused can possibly know what sentence he'll get at the end of his trial. He can only TRY to secure a sentence as light as possible for himself through a defense strategy or another. Your 'argument' is an anachronistic nonsense because indictment always precedes verdict. Too bad your brain is too small to understand that simple truth. Really pathetic.

[HansHill]

for example, mass gassings at Dachau. There is no evidence mass gassings took place, which proves there were no such gassings.

Holohoaxers didn't drop the Dachau gas chamber story because it turned out that there was no evidence mass gassings took place in Dachau. They dropped it because it was becoming increasingly embarrassing and so dangerous for the whole gas chamber myth.

Just a minor point to add here. Nessie as usual is wrong. There was indeed evidence that mass gassings took place at Dachau.

Eyewitnesses such as Dr Franz Blaha testified to seeing the gassings with his own eyes.

Many executions by gas or shooting or injections took place right in the camp. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still alive, and the remainder appeared to be dead. Their eyes were red, and their faces were swollen. Many prisoners were later killed in this way. Afterwards they were removed to the crematorium where I had to examine their teeth for gold.

IMT - Day 32

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-11-46.asp

Another eyewitness, a welshman named Sergeant Evan Llewellyn Edwards

"At Dachau, men were gassed in hundreds, kicked to death, died from starvation," Wyn told the trial.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-52444284

Historians also continued with the gassing claims, such as:

Dachau was used as a school for torture techniques – as well as the widespread medical experimentation carried out by doctors of tropical medicine, aviation experts and creators of poisonous gases. "Dachau was the nucleus of National Socialist terror," said historian Wolfgang Benz

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... -ss-terror

And finally, three members of Justice Jackson's legal team provided affidavits to the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Dachau, these were James B. Donovan, Lt Colonel Calvin Behle, and Lt Hugh Daly. David Irving, Nuremberg The Last Battle p 197

So as you can see, these obviously fraudulent gas chambers are every bit as """"""evidenced""""" as those at Birkenau. In fact, they are even more evidenced, because you can go there and walk around them today.

[Nessie]

Evidence something did NOT happen is about proving a negative, a well-known logical fallacy.

Rubbish. For a start, so-called revisionists are trying to evidence there were no mass killings in gas chambers. Then it is possible to prove a negative,

You have patently never read a single Holocaust revisionist book. Holocaust revisionists expose the technical impossibilities of the orthodox narrative, point out that there exists no such a thing as solid tangible evidence for the Holocaust, and demonstrate that the alleged "criminal traces" of the Holocaust are not what they're claimed to be. That's not what's called proving a negative. That's showing the emptiness and fragility of the Holocaust case.

No, it is proving a negative, meaning you are proving something did not happen, exist, or it is false. You have just described the ways so-called revisionists try to do that. If something is technically impossible, then that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

for example, mass gassings at Dachau. There is no evidence mass gassings took place, which proves there were no such gassings.

Holohoaxers didn't drop the Dachau gas chamber story because it turned out that there was no evidence mass gassings took place in Dachau. They dropped it because it was becoming increasingly embarrassing (or "a cesspool of controversy" as they poetically put it back then) and so dangerous for the whole gas chamber myth. When they did that, they believed that the Iron Curtain would last for centuries and the bogus gas chambers of the Holocaust would be safe from scrutiny and exposure for a very long time behind it.

But you can still find a whole load of information about the Dachau gas chambers, so how is it dangerous to the gassing claims as a whole? The answer is that it is not. It shows that some investigations were flawed and that not all camps alleged to be death camps, with mass gassings, were such.

As an example, say there was an allegation the British were gassing German internees on the Isle of Man. If German internees were interviewed and said they knew nothing about that and none of them had gone missing, and the place where the gassings were supposed to have happened was examined and it was a shower and documents accounted for all the internees, that would prove the claim was wrong. You clearly do not understand evidencing, or fallacies.

... says a guy who opted for the name "Nessie" and whose avatar is a dubious blurry photo of the alleged Loch Ness monster!!!

And you clearly don't understand how "war crimes" show trials work and why they're held.
A feigned credulity as ridiculous as possible.

I have just explained to you, how you would prove a gassing allegation was not true. You know you cannot do that, with any of the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas, so you react like a child.

If the victors of WW1 had stuck to a lie of six million children having had their hands cut off by the Germans during the war by bringing bogus corroborating 'evidence' such as false testimonies by alleged witnesses and victims, false confessions by alleged perpetrators and pictures of children with missing hands, history books would portray that fictive atrocity as a proven fact in the historiography of the First World War. The post-WW1 downfall of the victors' propaganda lies was admittedly the reason why the victors of WW2 held Soviet-style show trials like the Nuremberg judicial farce after WW2.

Only a die hard conspiracists thinks it is possible to pull off such a hoax and maintain it. It would be impossible to not notice there is a complete lack of people who had their hands cut off, when there should be six million.

Having people state that they had talked to someone who saw it with their own eyes was more than enough to keep the hoax alive as long as necessary. And the endorsement of the hoax by authority figures like Lord Bryce easily turned that belief into a strong faith. Never underestimate the gullibility of average people.

You are dodging my point that a hoax about 6 million children having their hands cut off, would never survive as an accepted history, without evidence of that happening. All of those news stories and the hoax about children having the hands cut off never survived, proves my point.

Half of the countries you mentioned fell in Soviet hands during WW2 and became Soviet dominions during the following 5 decades. And the other countries had no way to know what had happened to "their" deported Jews during WW2 anyway. How could they have known what had happened to the Jews who decided to go to Jew-occupied Palestine, the United States, British countries or elsewhere after WW2 instead of returning to countries that had handed them over to the Nazis during the war? Moreover many Jews were not "their citizens" as you claim. For instance, around 90% of the Jews who were in Belgium in 1938 were recent immigrants from antisemitic countries like Germany and Poland and they did not have Belgian citizenship. They had no strong ties to Belgium and so no good reasons to resettle in Belgium rather than in Palestine or the United States after WW2. The situation was very similar in all the countries of Western Europe.

You have dodged my point that all of those countries admit to assisting the Nazis, when it is against their national interests to do that.

What does that have to do with what happened and didn't happen to Jews in the camps where they were deported to ???

And you dodged my point that the very numerous Jews who were in Western countries without having citizenship had no good reason(s) to return to countries that disliked them enough to assist the Nazis and help the latter to kick them out during WW2.

They had reason to return to their original country and reclaim their homes etc.

Historians have been able to trace all the displaced people from WWII and there is evidence of how many Jews moved to Palestine or the USA, which leaves one huge 6 million hole that no one, let along so-called revisionists can account for. You demand evidence they were killed, but are quite happy to believe they lived, with no evidence.

That's a lie. No historian could of course trace the over 40 million people displaced by war in Europe alone from 1939 to 1945. That's a grotesque bluff.

Too bad the "evidence" of how many Jews moved to Palestine or the USA was provided by the ardent Zionists who headed "Israel" and the United States back then. They of course had very good reasons to lie and downplay those numbers. If some pro-Hamas officials claimed tomorrow that 1.1 million Palestinians vanished in Gaza since October 2023, would you regard it as a hard fact proven by an impartial source?

The problem for you is that the Nazis kept records of the Jews they identified, registered and arrested and the documentary trails for millions of them stops in certain specific camps. That is unlike many displaced people. They disappeared after they had been arrested and taken into custody.

A source independent from them like court testimonies, forensic reports and circumstancial evidence?

Here it is :


https://i.postimg.cc/NspJZ6yp/Blood-Libel-Trials.jpg

You're welcome.

There is no evidence in what you linked to. I would not prosecute based only on a confession.

Who's the denier now?

You are. It clearly confuses you that I would not accept confessions alone as evidence.

No, I didn't say that. The risk of a heavy sentence and the promise of a light sentence are not mutually exclusive things. Both things are even the essence of what such a deal is all about. Not ridiculous. Such deals take place every day in all countries of the world.

According to you, Nazis falsely confessed, whether they were given death, heavy or light sentences. You just come with ad hoc excuses to dismiss all the evidence you do not want to believe. You are just making things up!

No accused can possibly know what sentence he'll get at the end of his trial. He can only TRY to secure a sentence as light as possible for himself through a defense strategy or another. Your 'argument' is an anachronistic nonsense because indictment always precedes verdict. Too bad your brain is too small to understand that simple truth. Really pathetic.

Nazis on trial in Germany and Austria, knew they did not face the death sentence and they were likely to get light sentences. Yet they still did not deny the killings.

[Nessie]

for example, mass gassings at Dachau. There is no evidence mass gassings took place, which proves there were no such gassings.

Holohoaxers didn't drop the Dachau gas chamber story because it turned out that there was no evidence mass gassings took place in Dachau. They dropped it because it was becoming increasingly embarrassing and so dangerous for the whole gas chamber myth.

Just a minor point to add here. Nessie as usual is wrong. There was indeed evidence that mass gassings took place at Dachau.

Eyewitnesses such as Dr Franz Blaha testified to seeing the gassings with his own eyes.

Many executions by gas or shooting or injections took place right in the camp. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still alive, and the remainder appeared to be dead. Their eyes were red, and their faces were swollen. Many prisoners were later killed in this way. Afterwards they were removed to the crematorium where I had to examine their teeth for gold.

IMT - Day 32

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-11-46.asp

That is one witness claiming some limited gassings. He also said;

https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/docum ... ?mode=text

"Mental patients were liquidated by being led to the gas chamber and injected there or shot"

That is Action 14f13, not the mass gassings of the AR camps, Chelmno and at A-B.

Another eyewitness, a welshman named Sergeant Evan Llewellyn Edwards

"At Dachau, men were gassed in hundreds, kicked to death, died from starvation," Wyn told the trial.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-52444284

To be an eyewitness, you need to see what you speak about. Did Edwards see a gassing? No. He is giving hearsay evidence. It is staggering you are yet to work out the difference.

Historians also continued with the gassing claims, such as:

Dachau was used as a school for torture techniques – as well as the widespread medical experimentation carried out by doctors of tropical medicine, aviation experts and creators of poisonous gases. "Dachau was the nucleus of National Socialist terror," said historian Wolfgang Benz

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... -ss-terror

And finally, three members of Justice Jackson's legal team provided affidavits to the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Dachau, these were James B. Donovan, Lt Colonel Calvin Behle, and Lt Hugh Daly. David Irving, Nuremberg The Last Battle p 197

So as you can see, these obviously fraudulent gas chambers are every bit as """"""evidenced""""" as those at Birkenau. In fact, they are even more evidenced, because you can go there and walk around them today.

They found a room that could have been used for gassings. That is not the same as seeing gassings, for which you have provided one eyewitness, who speaks to its limited use for gassings. Hence, historians have proven Dachau was not a death camp where mass gassings took place. They have done something many so-called revisionists argue is impossible and they proved a negative. They did for Dachau, what you cannot do for an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema.

[Keen]

That's a lie... Too bad your brain is too small to understand that simple truth. Really pathetic.

That's all it does, because it's all it can do and all it and it's chickenshit ilk ever will do.

If revisionists wern't such chickenshit cowards themselves, maybe CODOH would have a section where people with a pair could actually debate using their real names. The lying would drastically diminish and real debate could take place.

[Keen]

They disappeared after they had been arrested and taken into custody.

Ah yes, Roberto can't make a post without mention of its magically disappearing jew theory.

[HansHill]

To be an eyewitness, you need to see what you speak about. Did Edwards see a gassing? No. He is giving hearsay evidence. It is staggering you are yet to work out the difference.

Ahh I see, thanks for the civics lesson Mr Nessie. When Edwards said "Men were gassed" under oath, I took it to mean "men were gassed", under oath. Silly me.

Since Edwards clearly was citing a third party, politely direct me to which third party he was citing? Under oath.

[Nessie]

To be an eyewitness, you need to see what you speak about. Did Edwards see a gassing? No. He is giving hearsay evidence. It is staggering you are yet to work out the difference.

Ahh I see, thanks for the civics lesson Mr Nessie. When Edwards said "Men were gassed" under oath, I took it to mean "men were gassed", under oath. Silly me.

Since Edwards clearly was citing a third party, politely direct me to which third party he was citing? Under oath.

You claimed he was an eyewitness. The burden of proof is on you to prove that British POWs either worked at the Dachau gas chambers, or were taken there to witness gassings. All the other gas chamber eyewitnesses I have read give some details about the chamber and gassings. He just makes a simple, vague reference.

[HansHill]

You claimed he was an eyewitness. The burden of proof is on you to prove that British POWs either worked at the Dachau gas chambers, or were taken there to witness gassings. All the other gas chamber eyewitnesses I have read give some details about the chamber and gassings. He just makes a simple, vague reference.

It's very simple Nessie. If you wish to discard his testimony on technical grounds such as hearsay, fine - I am listening, and I'm open to that line of argument. Explain specifically why, from the testimony, that it should be taken as hearsay in it's given context? Who is he citing? Where does he explain that he became aware of this hearsay? Where in the transcript does the court discard this testimony and eject the witness?

"Me mum said men were gassed at Dachau" - Is that what he said?

Give me something to work with here. Without context of the above kind, we can only go on what is presented, which is an authoritative matter of fact statement that men were gassed. Which unfortunately for you, means he and all the other eyewitnesses were lying to the court, and in turn, the court was complicit in these fabrications.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that British POWs either worked at the Dachau gas chambers, or were taken there to witness gassings.

I am rejecting this challenge as bad faith and dishonest. This obviously cannot be done, because there were no gassings for him to be at. That's the whole point, he like all your other witnesses, is lying.