Comments on other threads.

[Nessie]

You don't have the wood, you don't have enough lumberjacks to supply it, you don't have the ashes quantified. What the hell do you even have to claim this is the best-documented event in history?

I don't have evidence, that is not important in determining the history of TII. I have lots of evidence that does determine the history of TII;

viewtopic.php?t=594

[Stubble]

I'm willing to concede pits g-50-g-53 if the orthodoxy is willing to excavate them and prove them up, illustrating that they indeed contain human remains.

I'd concede the others too if they did the same, however, it is my opinion there are no remains to be found in the other pits, except perhaps the one behind the alleged lazertte, maybe.

This is something that will never happen though.

I eagerly await the recently concluded new csc study and the recently concluded Polish study of the alleged extermination camp situated at the supposed site of Treblinka II.

There will be, a lot of words...

You are very selective about the evidence you will accept. Cherry-picking is another of the logical fallacies you rely upon. As for "words", they will refer to and describe evidence, something you cannot do.

Says the guy that takes a context free quote from the Polish Commission Report and picks it, assuming that cherry is ripe, and then proceeds to shout 56 Olympic Swimming Pools over and over again...


You are a walking contradiction and a joke Sir.

You are not source critical and you unironically take Pravda as gospel.

[Keen]

Physical quantification would be impossible

The mentally ill pathological liar pretends that out of well over 6 million pounds of this:



that it is physically impossible to quantify one single pound.

And it still hasn't shown us the evidence of one single tooth.

NOT ONE!

[Keen]

I'm willing to concede pits g-50-g-53 if the orthodoxy is willing to excavate them and prove them up, illustrating that they indeed contain human remains.

I'd concede the others too if they did the same, however, it is my opinion there are no remains to be found in the other pits, except perhaps the one behind the alleged lazertte, maybe.

This is something that will never happen though.

I eagerly await the recently concluded new csc study and the recently concluded Polish study of the alleged extermination camp situated at the supposed site of Treblinka II.

There will be, a lot of words...

I'm curious to know why you and other revisionists steadfasatly refuse to hold this pathological liar to its burden of proof.

In fact, I find it mind boggling.

Please look at this post:

viewtopic.php?p=24292#p24292

and explain to me how you can continue to let this POS cravenly evade its burden of proof.

[Keen]

I'm willing to concede pits g-50-g-53 if the orthodoxy is willing to excavate them and prove them up, illustrating that they indeed contain human remains.

Do you have any evidence that the alleged pits g-50-g-53 actually exist?

Do you have any evidence that the alleged pits g-50-g-53 actually contain burnt human remains?



What about G-54?

[Stubble]

I'm willing to concede pits g-50-g-53 if the orthodoxy is willing to excavate them and prove them up, illustrating that they indeed contain human remains.

Do you have any evidence that the alleged pits g-50-g-53 actually exist?

Do you have any evidence that the alleged pits g-50-g-53 actually contain burnt human remains?



What about G-54?

Nope, just suspicion. I assume there are some bodies at the site from attrition and antipartisan executions. I'd like to know for sure, both scope and scale. While I would be surprised if nothing were found in those pits, I wouldn't be wholly shocked.

54 appears to be a tank trap to me and I would assume the motor pool was on the other side of it and that it was outside the fence of the alleged execution area.

Sorry, I confused 54 and 50. I meant to say g51-g54, excluding g-50. I just looked at the map again and realized my mistake.

[TlsMS93]

These archaeological “works” in the Reinhardt fields aren't much different from those media-driven “works” interested in proving the Bible; they even coined the term "biblical archaeology" for it.

When trying to prove their points, they use indirect and vague arguments and attempt to push the argument of convergence of evidence onto all of this.

Serious Egyptologists will never say that the Exodus existed or even that Hebrew slaves were in Egypt en masse without compelling proof. Similarly, an archaeologist who doesn't know what they're looking for will never claim that the Reinhardt fields contain evidence of burned remains indicating that millions died there. Those who claim this already operate with this perspective in their minds and are working precisely to strengthen pre-existing beliefs; in other words, they are biased, partial, where even a floor becomes proof, like those who claim to have found Joseph's ring of authority as governor of Egypt.

[Nessie]

I'm willing to concede pits g-50-g-53 if the orthodoxy is willing to excavate them and prove them up, illustrating that they indeed contain human remains.

I'd concede the others too if they did the same, however, it is my opinion there are no remains to be found in the other pits, except perhaps the one behind the alleged lazertte, maybe.

This is something that will never happen though.

I eagerly await the recently concluded new csc study and the recently concluded Polish study of the alleged extermination camp situated at the supposed site of Treblinka II.

There will be, a lot of words...

You are very selective about the evidence you will accept. Cherry-picking is another of the logical fallacies you rely upon. As for "words", they will refer to and describe evidence, something you cannot do.

Says the guy that takes a context free quote from the Polish Commission Report and picks it, assuming that cherry is ripe, and then proceeds to shout 56 Olympic Swimming Pools over and over again...

The corroborating evidence provides the context. I can produce evidence from other sources pertinent to the operation of TII. You cannot do that, for example, you cannot produce a single eyewitness who worked inside the camp, who provides a revised version of events. So, it is you who cherry-picks with no context.

You are a walking contradiction and a joke Sir.

You rely heavily on logical fallacies, due to your inability to produce an evidenced revised history.

You are not source critical and you unironically take Pravda as gospel.

That is another logical fallacy from you. I do not take Pravda as gospel. Instead, I check claims and sources, using the corroboration method. If Pravda made a claim and it was corroborated by the evidence, then the claim would be verified.

The Polish War Crimes Commission Report is corroborated by every Nazi who worked inside TII, who states mass murder took place and there were mass graves and cremations, and then the 2011 site survey, that found evidence of a series of pits in the parts of the camp that the Poles, and the Nazis identified as containing mass graves.

You cannot produce corroborated evidence, so you rely on arguments, without realising that the arguments you use are logically flawed.

[Nessie]

I'm willing to concede pits g-50-g-53 if the orthodoxy is willing to excavate them and prove them up, illustrating that they indeed contain human remains.

Do you have any evidence that the alleged pits g-50-g-53 actually exist?

Do you have any evidence that the alleged pits g-50-g-53 actually contain burnt human remains?



What about G-54?

Nope, just suspicion. I assume there are some bodies at the site from attrition and antipartisan executions. I'd like to know for sure, both scope and scale. While I would be surprised if nothing were found in those pits, I wouldn't be wholly shocked.

You are being dishonest that historians only suspect there are mass graves. There is corroborating evidence from the eyewitnesses who worked at the camp, site surveys and circumstances, such as the documented mass arrivals with no evidence of mass departures, to prove hundreds of thousands were killed, buried and cremated.

54 appears to be a tank trap to me and I would assume the motor pool was on the other side of it and that it was outside the fence of the alleged execution area.

Sorry, I confused 54 and 50. I meant to say g51-g54, excluding g-50. I just looked at the map again and realized my mistake.

That is you admitting you only have suspicion.

[Nessie]

These archaeological “works” in the Reinhardt fields aren't much different from those media-driven “works” interested in proving the Bible; they even coined the term "biblical archaeology" for it.

When trying to prove their points, they use indirect and vague arguments and attempt to push the argument of convergence of evidence onto all of this.

Wrong. In determining what took place at TII, investigators, from the War Crimes Commission to historians, journalists and archaeologists, have gathered evidence pertaining to the camp. They have traced people who worked there, or who lived and worked nearby. They have conducted site surveys, tracing physical, forensic and archaeological evidence. Documents that reference the camp and AR have been traced and collated. The investigation is evidence led, something that so-called Holocaust revisionists cannot do.

Serious Egyptologists will never say that the Exodus existed or even that Hebrew slaves were in Egypt en masse without compelling proof. Similarly, an archaeologist who doesn't know what they're looking for will never claim that the Reinhardt fields contain evidence of burned remains indicating that millions died there. Those who claim this already operate with this perspective in their minds and are working precisely to strengthen pre-existing beliefs; in other words, they are biased, partial, where even a floor becomes proof, like those who claim to have found Joseph's ring of authority as governor of Egypt.

The site surveys conducted by archaeologists, have gathered evidence to prove that large areas of the ground was dug up and it contains buried cremated remains, larger human remains, personal property, the remains of buildings and a number of pits. What happened for that to be the case, and why, is determined by the evidence gathered by historians, journalists and war crimes investigators.

A floor on its own would not be proof, you just made that up, or it shows you do not understand evidencing.

[Nessie]

Archie is pushing false Holocaust denier propaganda;

viewtopic.php?p=24026#p24026

Revisionists have talked about the Holocaust as a religion for decades. Me, for example:

In most of Europe, it is now illegal to do research on the Holocaust unless you respect certain predetermined conclusions. In the United States, free thought on the Holocaust is still allowed to a degree because of the First Amendment tradition, but Holocaust revisionism is still suppressed via corporate censorship and other forms of harassment and economic threats. Because the Holocaust is sacralized history, to challenge it is treated not just as an intellectual folly but a moral outrage. Thus it carries with it an especially strong opprobrium and moral censure that is not present in ordinary intellectual debates. This moral dimension makes "Holocaust denial" akin to heresy in a religious context and this explains why the Holocaust is especially hard to challenge.

Unthinking deference to expert opinion is an unreliable heuristic on third rail topics like "the Holocaust" where people cannot share their true views without suffering retaliation. If institutional powers decree that "Holocaust denial" is inherently not respectable, then by definition no one "respectable" can support Holocaust denial. Such circularities mean little.

It is illegal to doubt and deny the primary events of the Holocaust in many, but not all European countries and a few others world wide. The majority have no such laws, and some such as Iran have even encouraged denial.

As for research, nothing that the deniers and so-called revisionists do, bares much resemblance to what historians and other investigators do. History is determined by the gathering of evidence and then piecing it together in chronological order to reach a conclusion. Revisionists cannot do that when it comes to the history of the Jews in Europe during WWII, showing what variously happened to many of them and where they were in 1945. They do not deny the evidence where Jews escaped or otherwise survived, such as the Danish Jews in 1943. They do deny mass murder in certain camps, but they cannot evidence a revised history for those place, or evidence where the Jews they deny were killed, in 1944-5.

Even universities in countries such as Iran, which has a vested interest in taking down anything Jewish or Israeli, cannot produce a revised, evidenced, chronological history of the Jews in general, or any of the death camps. There is no specific denial law in the Netherlands. It was one of the most cooperative of the countries occupied by the Nazis, with many Dutch people actively assisting the Nazis identify, arrest, imprison and transport Jews. That is why it has one of the highest attrition rates and death tolls. It would be very much in Dutch interests, for historians to trace evidence to prove that like the Danish Jews, the vast majority of Dutch Jews survived. The same applies to Latvia, whose citizens joined with the EG and conducted mass shootings. It has denial laws, but it would still be very much in national interests, for historians or other investigators to expose the alleged mass shootings at site such as Rumbula, is hoaxes, in particular Soviet hoaxes. If an Iranian historian found evidence to dispute the Holocaust, they would be sure it got huge exposure, with no risk to themselves.

Every country in Europe, with the exception of Denmark and Finland, had citizens who cooperated with the Nazis. It is rather odd that those two countries get to exclude themselves from the supposed hoax and produce evidenced histories of how they protected the vast majority of their Jewish citizens and their survival and whereabouts in 1945. Would other European countries not like to joint them and evidence how their Jewish citizens survived? Why would France accept a history that involved a degree of protection, along with having c70,000 killed? How would a French historian, who found evidence that tens of thousands of French Jews were liberated in 1945, be breaking the law? That would not be the case and instead the French would be able to revise the death toll down and join Denmark and Finland, as heroic protectors of their Jewish citizens. Other countries would surely want to join them, rather than have to face up to their collaboration and assistance in the deaths. The motive to find and reveal evidence is there, and the lack of any reveal must be due to that evidence not existing, because the majority of Jews did not survive, and the evidence they were killed stands.

So many people, including revisionists such as Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno, have had extensive access to potential sources of evidence, in various national and other archives, that if the evidence of mass survival of millions of Jews supposedly not murdered existed, at least some of it would have been traced by now. But, like the Iranian, Dutch, French and Latvian historians, they have not found any evidence to produce revised histories that do not involve mass murder.

The history of the Holocaust has been set by the evidence, since the first evidence of mass murder appeared in 1941. It is not illegal to research to find a different conclusion to the mass murders. It is illegal to claim no mass murders, without accompanying evidence to prove the lie and what happened instead. Since no one, has found such evidence, attempting to reach an unevidenced conclusion, is all Holocaust deniers and revisionists have and they try to excuse their failure, by suggesting it is due to denial laws. Instead, it is due to their inability to find the necessary evidence.