Comments on other threads.

[Nessie]

Gallius;

viewtopic.php?p=23511#p23511

For example, the bombing, bombing and the bombing. the film does not explain how Germany had been flattened by years of bombing by Allied forces. It does not explain the vast destruction and collapse of infrastructure where often there was no running water, no electricity... and no food! Given this context, how would viewers tend answer this multiple choice question:

Based on the appearance of the dead bodies in this film, the primary cause of death was:

a) machine gun fire
b) pushed off of cliffs
c) poison gassing of relative healthy camp arrivals
d) dog attack
e) starvation

Actually context is hardly necessary when most of the bodies are only skin and bones. The multiple choice question itself reveals a huge crack in the narrative. The context gives the aha, a better explanation. It was not a “plan”. The dissidents’ explanation about the condition of the camps is far more plausible. It also explains why the Allies were keen to cover up and shift the blame for what amounts to a huge case of… friendly famine.

What is evidenced to have happened, which can be seen by the camp staff and prisoners such as Allied POWs, is that only the Jewish prisoners starved to death and whose coprses were bulldozed into mass graves by the liberating Allies. When supplies ran short, the SS camp staff stopped feeding the Jewish prisoners, so much so, that on being given rations on liberation, many died from re-feeding syndrome. Food became toxic to their starved bodies, which evidences how badly they were treated.

Context is determined by evidence, and the belief that somehow Allied bombs caused the Jews to starve, is not supported by the evidence. Bombing did reduce supplies, but camps such as Bergen-Belsen were still getting deliveries. The camp staff were responsible for not ensuring everyone got enough to eat to stop them from dying.

[Keen]

Context is determined by evidence

And it is determined even more by a lack of physical evidence.

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.

[Nessie]

Gallius;

viewtopic.php?p=23686#p23686

2. The legend of the homicidal gas chambers rests too much on “eye-witness” testimony while other hard evidence to corroborate their actual existence, lethality/operational safety, logistical capacity, and managerial organization at scale, remains skimpy and contradictory. Having no autopsies confirming poison gas as the cause of death is no small missing piece of evidence. Furthermore, Stories of diesel engine exhaust, which has very low levels of carbon monoxide, killing lots of people in barely 30 minutes cannot be taken seriously except as proof the official story is contaminated to some degree with falsehoods.

The reason why there is a relative lack of "hard evidence" is the Nazis destruction of evidence, which is a criminal act from which we can infer criminality on their part. There is way more physical and other evidence than revisionists are prepared to acknowledge. There is no evidence from autopsies, because gassings stopped by the end of 1944 and no autopsies could be conducted until mid 1945. Plus, the Nazis cremated gassed corpses. The diesel engine claims are hearsay, those who saw the engines stated they were petrol or did not say what fuel was used.

That revisionists ignore the destruction of evidence, fail to understand the chronology of events and cannot spot hearsay over eyewitness evidence, is evidence of the very low standard of investigation that they conduct. I put that down to their lack of training.

3. The alleged numbers of Jews killed by Nazi Germany in the official story is not based on an actual skull count, a tooth count or any hard physical evidence of that sort as was used to estimate the number of Polish intelligentsia murdered by Soviet forces in the Katyn Forest Massacre. The estimates of Jews killed and cremated in WW2 depend on claims which do not hold up especially well under various angles of scrutiny. In fact the claim of six million Jews killed was erected before such totals could have been properly confirmed. The biography of Abba Kovner illustrates this when his obsession to murder six million Germans was cemented in his vengeance-filled mind early in the summer of 1945, some six months before the first Nuremberg trial even began. Clearly he believed 6 million was the number to kill in kind, but who told him and how did they know barely a month after Germany was defeated?

The majority of the death toll evidence comes from the Nazis recording how many Jews they were arresting, transporting and executing. The countries they occupied or were aligned to further confirm the Nazi figures, with census records that prove huge drops in the Jewish population.

4. The outlawing of Holocaust doubt and dissent across numerous countries is an egregious assault on free speech and free inquiry. Imprisoning people for such “thought crime” is the crime that needs to be stopped. Having doubts about a slice of history for which the evidence is in fact rather tenuous is not a big deal, let alone a dangerous heresy that threatens the social order. This silly non sequitur is the result of a sort of militant Judeo lese majeste law now in effect in what could be considered a Pax Judaica. This affront on common sense and liberty should be rejected with satire and moral outrage and everything in between.

Some countries have decided since Holocaust denial is usually driven by anti-Semitism, that it relies on anti-Semitic tropes and it is a psuedo-history, used to create hate, that it should be illegal.

5. The Holocaust narrative is like a canon behind that old harpoon “anti-semitism”. It has been used as weapon, shield and shake down device for all manner of crime, mischief and malfeasance. As when Alejandro Mayorkas invoked his family being victims of the Holocaust when being questioned too aggressively in Congress about his treasonous open borders policy during the Biden Administration. The Holocaust card gets played by Jews all the time, especially when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Now that Israel has taken its genocidal mask off with the daily mass murder of Palestinians over the past two years, with Palestinian children violently killed now numbering in the tens of thousands, it is time to reject the Holocaust survivor claim as privilege for malevolent conduct and license to routinely commit assassinations and mass murder.

So-called Holocaust revisionists, are really Holocaust deniers, since they have failed to do the basic task of any investigator, which is prove what happened.

[Keen]

The reason why there is a relative lack of "hard evidence" is the Nazis destruction of evidence, which is a criminal act from which we can infer criminality on their part.

There's roberta proffering her "magically disappearing jew theory" again!

There is way more physical and other evidence than revisionists are prepared to acknowledge.

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.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

* * * * *

Additionally, and independent of any other Holocaust Archaeology Hoax Challenge, a - $100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass 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.)

Note: The 6 original fraudulently alleged “huge mass graves” of Treblinka II that were alleged by “authoritative eyewitnesses” and allegedly - “PROVEN” - to exist in the early show trials - MODEL - MAP - (but never found), are also included in the above reward offer. (A photo of one of these 6 fraudulently alleged “huge mass graves” can be seen - HERE.)

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Keen]

bombsaway:

I'm trying to get you guys to talk about what you actually believe happened.

You, roberta and nicky make unsubstantiated allegations, then, rather than accept your burden of production, persuasion and proof, ask others what they believe actually happened. This is a lame, transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you and your fellow mentally ill HC cult members tried this kind of scheme in court, you would get you laughed out in a heartbeat.

[Nessie]

Stubble;

viewtopic.php?p=23793#p23793

Well, looks like no exterminationist on the board wants to touch Muller with a 10 foot pole.

This thread has been up for, a minute, and Nessie dipped in for a bit. Looks like bombsaway will be dipping out.

I guess, he really is indefensible.

There is evidence from documents that he was at A-B when he said he was and has claims are corroborated. His alleged lies are not proven and his "Slips, Bungles and Perjuries" are merely the biased opinion of revisionists who just do not want to believe him.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... -of-filip/

"So we’ve gone from 18 months to 14 months to six weeks in isolation working the secret “Fischlkommando” in the alleged homicidal gas chamber of Auschwitz Crematorium I.
We have Müller lying on the stand in the Polish tribunal and in the memoir, at the least…"

That he gave varying lengths of time, each time he recollected how long he was at Krema I, is not evidence to prove he lied about Krema I. It has been assumed, with no evidence, that someone who is lying will not remember how long they were at a certain place, and what they said the last time.

[Keen]

There is evidence from documents that he was at A-B when he said he was and has claims are corroborated

Here is where one who wastes their time arguing with roberto, has to ask, EVERY SINGLE TIME - what he means by "corroborated."

I.e. - "confirm" (state with assurance that a fact is true) or "give support."

EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. TIME.

[Keen]

His alleged lies are not proven

Notice how roberto demands that others prove their claims, yet he simply relies on so-called "evidence" when he makes his unsubstantiated allegatations.

Why "revisionists" play this game with him and his ilk is mind boggling.

[Keen]

roberto:

Krzepicki is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses and physical evidence

viewtopic.php?p=19138#p19138

roberta, when you say "corroborated" - do you mean "confirm" or "give support"?

Is there any physical evidence that you can prove actually exists within the boundary of T II that confirms Krzepicki's "testimony"?

[Keen]

roberta:

You doubt and deny the evidence I produce and think that is your work as a revisionist done.

“HUGE MASS GRAVES” are easily identifiable physical entities.

I refuse to believe in the existence of any physical entity that I am not allowed to see.

If you want me to believe, then simply: Show me that which you allege I deny.

[Keen]

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 8:09 am

You have asserted.

You have 'evidenced' literally nothing.

roberta:

How would you evidence if someone had been somewhere or not?

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 2:06 pm

Nessie, the above post is clutter. Provide some kind of specific argument about why you believe the testimony, if you please.

roberta:

I think you are struggling to understand evidencing.

viewtopic.php?p=19169#p19169[/quote]

Black's law dictionary

evidence

Any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to their contention. Taylor v. Howard, 111 R.I. 527, 304 A.2d 891, 893.

Testimony, writings, or material objects offered in proof of an alleged fact or proposition. That probative material, legally received, by which the tribunal may be lawfully persuaded of the truth or falsity of a fact in issue. People v. Leonard, 207 C.A.2d 409, 24 Cal.Rptr. 597, 600.

Testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. Calif.Evid.Code.

All the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved.

Any matter of fact, the effect, tendency, or design of which is to produce in the mind a persuasion of the existence or nonexistence of some matter of fact. That which demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue, either on the one side or on the other. That which tends to produce conviction in the mind as to existence of a fact. The means sanctioned by law of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a question of fact. As a part of procedure "evidence" signifies those rules of law whereby it is determined what testimony should be admitted and what should be rejected in each case, and what is the weight to be given to the testimony admitted.

burden of production

The burden of production refers to a party's obligation to come forward with sufficient evidence to support a particular proposition of fact. The burden of production combines with the burden of persuasion to make up the burden of proof throughout a trial.

Satisfying the burden of production may also be referred to as establishing a prima facie case. Determining whether a party has satisfied its burden of production is not an issue of fact for the jury; it is an issue of law. As a result, a judge can dismiss a case before it ever gets to the jury when they believe this burden has not been met.

When a party has satisfied its burden of production, it has produced enough evidence on an issue to have the issue decided by the fact-finder rather than decided against the party in a directed verdict, motion for judgment as a matter of law or motion for summary judgment.

The burden of production is also referred to as: "burden of going forward with evidence," "production burden."

[Last reviewed in June of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

burden of persuasion

The burden of persuasion is the requisite degree of belief a party must convince a jury that a particular proposition of fact is true. Combined with the burden of production, the burden of persuasion makes up one half of the burden of proof.

In civil cases, a party's burden is usually "by a preponderance of the evidence." In criminal cases, the prosecution's burden is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In practice, the given burden of persuasion is often dispositive in close cases or cases where evidence is limited. As a result, courts often utilize burden shifting to place the burden of persuasion upon the party best capable of producing relevant evidence (see Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981)).

Unlike the burden of production, the burden of persuasion is an issue of fact, not an issue of law. As a result, a judge cannot dismiss a case before it reaches the jury for failing to meet the burden of persuasion.

[Last reviewed in November of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team]

burden of proof

Generally, burden of proof describes the standard that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must satisfy to have that fact legally established. There are different standards for different circumstances.

For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means the plaintiff merely needs to show that the fact in dispute is more likely than not. A "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are different standards, requiring different amounts of proof.

The burden of proof is often said to consist of two distinct but related concepts: the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion.

Depending on the jurisdiction and type of action, the legal standard to satisfy the burden of proof in U.S. litigation may include, but is not limited to:

beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal law.
clear and convincing evidence to prove fraud in will disputes.
preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases.
probable cause in the acquisition of a warrant or arrest proceeding.
reasonable belief as part of establishing probable cause.
reasonable suspicion in cases involving police stop and searches.
some credible evidence in cases necessitating immediate intervention, like child protective services disputes.
some evidence in cases involving inmate discipline.
substantial evidence in many appellate cases.

[Last reviewed in November of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team]

[Keen]

roberto:

C850,000 people went to TII

Is there eyewitness evidence that they ended up in 6 "huge mass graves"?

[Archie]

Keen, who is Roberta?