The case against gassing compared to shooting.

[Keen]

Stop distorting arguments and arguing in bad faith. This is why you are contained to your slop bin.

Come on HansHill, you know it is incapable of doing anything in good faith.

What should stop is revisionists playing the game that it wants revisionists to play.

[Keen]

You are now denying that evidence is evidence while avoiding a very simple question.

...

In sum, your explanation is totally incoherent, nonsensical, and contradicted by the evidential record.

Avoiding simple questions is what it does as it cravenly runs from its burden of proof.

It is playing the only game it can.

The question should be: Why do revisionists continue to play games with it?

Talk about nonsensical.

[Keen]

Insane behavior.

So why do you participate in the mentally ill HC cult member's insanity?

[Keen]

What is the "case"?

The case is explained here:

viewtopic.php?p=24672#p24672

and here:

viewtopic.php?p=24673#p24673

[Nessie]

It's bizarre that you would even ask this. The strength of the case for shootings is one of the best revisionist arguments against the case for gassings. Why did the Nazis extensively document shooting executions but not gassings?

How is that question, part of your best case? A best case, is an evidenced one, not a doubt expressed as a question. That you bring only doubts expressed as questions, rather than evidence, to the debate, is evidence your best case is a very weak one indeed.

You are now denying that evidence is evidence..

What eyewitnesses, documents etc are you referring to? You said "best revisionist arguments", but where is your evidence?

... while avoiding a very simple question.

Why did the Nazis extensively document shooting executions but not gassings?

Which I answered, as you now quote.

In 1941, the EG felt secure shooting Eastern European Jews. They had total control of the territory and a lot of local cooperation and support. The Nazis were already euthanising the disabled by gassing, but by 1942, they had to officially stop due to objections. They also knew that many in the West would object to killing Western Jews, so gassing operations needed a higher level of security.

So, in your opinion, what the Nazis chose to document and retain documents of was a matter of how secure they felt and how much local support they got.

It is not an opinion. It is a fact that the EG were more open about killing Jews in their documentation. They did not use euphemisms or coded language. As to the retention of documents, that appears more to be due to oversight, with documents being missed, when so many were being destroyed.

In that case, euthanasia gassings would be a perfect case for something that should have been documented, but it wasn't!

Euthanising the disabled in hospitals in Germany and Austria was kept very secret and officially it had to be cancelled, when it became public knowledge.

Further, if a feeling of security and the cooperation of locals are the relevant factors in documentation, then there is no reason why the Nazis would not have documented countless other alleged killings and gassings in 1941 and 1942, including those at Auschwitz. Where are all these documents?

In 1941-2, Auchwitz was not a death camp, instead, it was part of the euthanasia programme, for disabled prisoners.

Alternatively, you might suggest documents would be destroyed after the feeling of security was lost. But if so, we return to the original problem of all these documents attesting to shootings being preserved 3-4 years later. They did not burn the incriminating documents.

In sum, your explanation is totally incoherent, nonsensical, and contradicted by the evidential record.

The Nazis knew they had more support for killing eastern Jews, than killing disabled German children. That the EG failed to destroy some documents, will be down to oversight, just as some documents regarding AR and the construction of gas chambers at Birkenau were missed.

[Nessie]

The evidence for shootings is as strong as it is for gassings. Both have corroboration from eyewitnesses, documents etc. The only thing that shootings have over gassings, are photos and film of the action taking place.

Insane behavior. You've already confirmed by your argument upthread that gassings don't appear in the radio messages or in the EMs, but numerous shootings do in both. The contrast between the two is stark.

Is that it? You accept shootings as proven, because documents are more explicit than those which pertain to the AR camps and Birkenau in 1943-4? Are you arguing the case against gassing is down to its more coded language and lack of specific references to the use of gas?

Do you think that this, on its own, proves shooting?

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... rt101.html

"Sonderkommando 4a in collaboration with Einsatzgruppe HQ and two Kommandos of police regiment South, executed 33,771 Jews in Kiev on September 29 and 30, 1941."

Is this not part of the evidence of gassing?

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

"Telex from Heinrich Schwarz to SS-WVHA of 5 March 1943 on “918 women and children sent to special treatment"

[Keen]

...where is your evidence?

Where is your "proof"?

Nesserto:

My standard of proof is the same as historians or the courts use, whereby an event is proven when there is sufficient corroborating verified evidence to prove it.

A mass grave is defined as a grave containing multiple human corpses, or the remains of multiple people.

Nessie, how many actual mass graves did CSC actually prove actually exist within the boundary of the Treblinka II camp?

Nessie's answer:

12 - G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54.

Only a determined denier, who has lost grip on reality, will pretend that the corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses who describe mass graves, the aerial photo that shows disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and the site surveys that identified disturbed ground and pits in the areas of the camp that the witnesses said contained the mass graves, is not evidence to prove mass graves.

You doubt and deny the evidence I produce.

I am both a trained historian and police officer.

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.

ALL the mass graves dug by the Nazis, AND the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.

Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

Proof, from multiple sources of corroborating evidence, has been produced.

You ignore corroboration. You deny the gathered evidence.

Claiming that multiple pits found by geophysics in the same part of the camp that witnesses state the main mass graves were dug, is not corroborating evidence to prove mass graves, is denial of reality.

I can point to them in the ground.

I do not avoid discussing the empirical evidence.

I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof.

Two simple foundational questioins for the mentally ill pathological liar:

cor·rob·or·ation

evidence which confirms or supports a statement or theory

#1: When you use the word "corroboration", do you mean "confirm" or "support"?

#2: When you use the word "prove" in alleging that 12 actual "huge mass graves" have actually been proven to actually exist within the boundary of the Treblinka II camp (G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54), which of the following standards of proof are you alleging:

Arranged from lowest to highest, the standards of proof in American law follow a rough hierarchy:

Reasonable suspicion: Enough specific facts to justify a brief police stop, but well short of what’s needed for an arrest or a search warrant.

Probable cause: A fair probability that a crime occurred or evidence will be found, sufficient for an arrest or warrant.

Substantial evidence: Enough that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate, used when courts review agency decisions.

Preponderance of the evidence: More likely than not, the default for most civil lawsuits.

Clear and convincing evidence: Highly probable, reserved for civil matters with serious consequences like fraud claims or termination of parental rights.

Beyond a reasonable doubt: Firm conviction of guilt, required for all criminal convictions.

Absolute certainty: A state of knowledge or proof so complete that there is no possibility of doubt or uncertainty

[Wetzelrad]

What eyewitnesses, documents etc are you referring to? You said "best revisionist arguments", but where is your evidence?

You know what the evidence is. You have a prior familiarity with it. You've already had it partially quoted to you in this thread. You've already accepted that it exists in this thread. A question like this is designed purely to waste my time.

So, in your opinion, what the Nazis chose to document and retain documents of was a matter of how secure they felt and how much local support they got.

It is not an opinion. It is a fact that the EG were more open about killing Jews in their documentation. They did not use euphemisms or coded language.

This does nothing to answer the problem posed.

I asked, "Why did the Nazis extensively document shooting executions but not gassings?"
And you responded, "They did not use euphemisms or coded language."
You therefore confirm my premise and have no answer for why this glaring discrepancy in the evidence exists.

As to the retention of documents, that appears more to be due to oversight, with documents being missed, when so many were being destroyed.

What is the evidence that these documents were "missed" or an "oversight"? That sounds like something you just made up!

In 1941-2, Auchwitz was not a death camp, instead, it was part of the euthanasia programme, for disabled prisoners.

There were allegedly ~150,000 gassings at Auschwitz by the end of 1942. If you want to say that that was "not a death camp", I won't stop you.

However, that only exacerbates your trouble. If these alleged 150,000 gassings were conducted under an official euthanasia program, where are the documents to show for it? Why were real euthanasia killings and real Einsatzgruppen shootings (and hangings) from 1941-1942 documented but not this enormous number of gassings? Again, the contrast is black and white!

[Keen]

A question like this is designed purely to waste my time.

And to cravenly avoid it's burden of proof:

viewtopic.php?p=24672#p24672

viewtopic.php?p=24673#p24673

Yet you go on to spend your time responding to it and helping it with it's distractions and evasions.

???

Isn't it funny how there's always a "revisionist" who is willing to step in and play nesserto's game.

[Nessie]

What eyewitnesses, documents etc are you referring to? You said "best revisionist arguments", but where is your evidence?

You know what the evidence is. You have a prior familiarity with it. You've already had it partially quoted to you in this thread. You've already accepted that it exists in this thread. A question like this is designed purely to waste my time.

You don't have evidence, instead you rely on argument.

So, in your opinion, what the Nazis chose to document and retain documents of was a matter of how secure they felt and how much local support they got.

It is not an opinion. It is a fact that the EG were more open about killing Jews in their documentation. They did not use euphemisms or coded language.

This does nothing to answer the problem posed.

I asked, "Why did the Nazis extensively document shooting executions but not gassings?"
And you responded, "They did not use euphemisms or coded language."
You therefore confirm my premise and have no answer for why this glaring discrepancy in the evidence exists.

I answered the question. The mass shootings in the east had a lot of support from local people. Gassings in the west started with disabled Germans, which had a lot of opposition and had to be formally cancelled. The Nazis knew that expanded gassing operations, especially of western Jews, would have a lot of opposition, so the higher level of secrecy continued.

In any case, in December 1942, when Himmler reported to Hitler that 363,211 Jews had been executed over 4 months, he did not say how. That figure could have included gassing and shooting.

https://holocausthistory.site/1942-12-2 ... ur-months/

That was a rate of deaths that would easily meet the final c6 million death toll.

As to the retention of documents, that appears more to be due to oversight, with documents being missed, when so many were being destroyed.

What is the evidence that these documents were "missed" or an "oversight"? That sounds like something you just made up!

There are very few AR documents and none pertaining directly to the camps. But, in certain locations, such as the Auschwitz Construction Office and in Berlin, documents were found, that evidence mass murder.

In 1941-2, Auchwitz was not a death camp, instead, it was part of the euthanasia programme, for disabled prisoners.

There were allegedly ~150,000 gassings at Auschwitz by the end of 1942. If you want to say that that was "not a death camp", I won't stop you.

Meaning that in 1942, the death camps were the AR camps and Chelmno. A-B, as the largest labour camp, euthanised the largest number of prisoners. In 1943, when the AR camps had closed, Birkenau was then the death camp for the last remaining large populations of Jews.

However, that only exacerbates your trouble. If these alleged 150,000 gassings were conducted under an official euthanasia program, where are the documents to show for it? Why were real euthanasia killings and real Einsatzgruppen shootings (and hangings) from 1941-1942 documented but not this enormous number of gassings? Again, the contrast is black and white!

Gassings, shootings and euthanasia projects were all documented, most commonly as executions. I have explained to you why those who recorded the shootings were more open with their language and details, than those who recorded the gassings.

You have failed to explain why the supposed case against gassings, over shootings, is based on argument, rather than evidence.

[Keen]

It is not an opinion. It is a fact...

Speaking of facts nesserto:

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 scientific question: Can archaeologists prove, with 100% certainty, if millions of pounds of bones and tens of millions of teeth actually exist in a precisely known location?

Foundational legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are actually buried in the 100 specifically and precisely identified locations in question?

Foundational legal principles that easily expose this transparent archaeological hoax: BURDEN OF PRODUCTION & BURDEN OF PERSUASION & BURDEN OF 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/