Convergance of evidence.

[Nazgul]

That has happened because none of the revisionists have any relevant experience invstigating history, or criminality and they do not really know what they are doing. The result is not revisionism, it is denial. They deny mass gassings took place and then fail to follow on to an evidenced, logical conclusion.

Some here are real criminal investigators, your assumptions are without foundation, wishful thinking.
What does anything in this post speak of "convergence of evidence"? This is just another derail.

[Nessie]

That has happened because none of the revisionists have any relevant experience invstigating history, or criminality and they do not really know what they are doing. The result is not revisionism, it is denial. They deny mass gassings took place and then fail to follow on to an evidenced, logical conclusion.

Some here are real criminal investigators, your assumptions are without foundation, wishful thinking.
What does anything in this post speak of "convergence of evidence"? This is just another derail.

This thread proves so-called revisionists fail to revise history and when they try they fall apart.

[Nazgul]

This thread proves so-called revisionists fail to revise history and when they try they fall apart.

Why laugh at yourself? You only have opinions, valid perhaps only for yourself. Many are interested in the real story not the ramblings of some Highlander who loves the "uisce beatha", or water of life. There is a saying in Polynesia “Kāore te kumara e kōrero mō tōna ake reka”. As hard as it is try and be a little humble, your flaws to educated stick out like bulls testicles. Can you add something to some topic without the same nonsense given to everyone for over 10 years now.

[Nessie]

This thread proves so-called revisionists fail to revise history and when they try they fall apart.

Why laugh at yourself? You only have opinions, valid perhaps only for yourself. Many are interested in the real story not the ramblings of some Highlander who loves the "uisce beatha", or water of life. There is a saying in Polynesia “Kāore te kumara e kōrero mō tōna ake reka”. As hard as it is try and be a little humble, your flaws to educated stick out like bulls testicles. Can you add something to some topic without the same nonsense given to everyone for over 10 years now.

Historians and those tasked with criminal investigations, have gathered evidence and reached a consensus on what happened at the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas. That consensus is due to the chronological convergence of corroborating evidence. Those places were used to mass murder people inside gas chambers, and the burial/cremation of remains. They were then subject to a criminal destruction of evidence.

So-called revisionists, who, if they were genuine investigators, would also gather evidence to produce an evidenced history of events in those places, that concludes with a full chronology of what happened. But, they cannot do that. They fail at their basic task. Instead of being revisionists, they are deniers, who cannot even manage to evidence the massive conspiracy they allege.

Does it not bother you that your AR camps were customs posts theory, has not just little to no support amongst fellow revisionists, but many completely disagree with you? You don't even stick to that theory, as you often switch to claiming people did not even arrive at the AR camps and instead they were dropped off en route. Then you claim TII was located nowhere near where near the camp that is normally identified as TII, on the spur line to the TI labour camp and quarry. You cannot even get your story straight!

There is zero convergence of evidence amongst revisionists. No chronology, no agreement, nothing. A total and abject failure on their part. I see how you cannot face your failure, as you post stupid comments and go far more off topic than I ever do. Please don't bother to post, unless you which to admit to your mistake, or you think you can rationally explain why revisionists are somehow exempt from revising history.

[Nazgul]

Does it not bother you that your AR camps were customs posts theory, has not just little to no support amongst fellow revisionists, but many completely disagree with you? You don't even stick to that theory, as you often switch to claiming people did not even arrive at the AR camps and instead they were dropped off en route. Then you claim TII was located nowhere near where near the camp that is normally identified as TII, on the spur line to the TI labour camp and quarry. You cannot even get your story straight!

Every alleged AR camp were once border camps prior to the Russian invasion. There is an image of a Zollgrenzshutz officer at Sobibor. Perhaps that is indication some haftling were srutinized before going over the border. Reminder of the toll officer sitting down.


The apparent fact is that the story you continue to spray is based on atrocity propaganda. Legal people have tried to fit square pegs into round holes. We try and seek the real story. All camps had multiple functions, some of which have come to light. Instead of trying to understand those functions you promulgate a fiction.

[SanityCheck]

On the contrary, a 'preplanned' operation can well result in ad hoc improvisations when it is implemented. Military task forces are quite typical...

I appreciate you taking the time to pen your response Mr Check. You raise some valid points.

I could counter the first point by referring to the supposed nature and criticality of the operation lending it to a specialized nature requiring a preplanned operation rather than an ad hoc one. That's ultimately conjectural however.

With the rhetoric, I don't interpret it as genocidal. This is part of the crux of our disagreement on this particular facet of this event.

With the 'meeting of the minds' bit...I will look for the source for the 'some form of telepathy' statement. I believe that one too comes from your side of the fence. I'll try to nail it down. I really do need to collate and index my stuff with some sort of system. Currently it is all just crammed on to micro sd cards rather haphazardly. A couple of years ago I began to archive literally everything as I watched TPTB go after lbry and everything else. They are still cracking down, but, they haven't wiped the entire internet yet...

If I have made an error or am under a misconception regarding the 'telepathy' 'meeting of the minds' bit, I apologize. It was my understanding that in the absence of any order, this was the mainline view.

'Genocide by telepathy' was Robert Faurisson's spin on Hilberg's remark about 'incredible meeting of minds' at the Wannsee conference.

[Nazgul]

'Genocide by telepathy' was Robert Faurisson's spin on Hilberg's remark about 'incredible meeting of minds' at the Wannsee conference.

Hilberg who, in a speech reportedly made in 1983 is quoted as saying, “What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint… Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus — mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”
It seems your consensus that a military body the SS and others just did administration by a "meeting of minds". National Socialist Germany was not the wild west nor the Highlands of Scotland.

[Nessie]

Does it not bother you that your AR camps were customs posts theory, has not just little to no support amongst fellow revisionists, but many completely disagree with you? You don't even stick to that theory, as you often switch to claiming people did not even arrive at the AR camps and instead they were dropped off en route. Then you claim TII was located nowhere near where near the camp that is normally identified as TII, on the spur line to the TI labour camp and quarry. You cannot even get your story straight!

Every alleged AR camp were once border camps prior to the Russian invasion. There is an image of a Zollgrenzshutz officer at Sobibor. Perhaps that is indication some haftling were srutinized before going over the border. Reminder of the toll officer sitting down.


The apparent fact is that the story you continue to spray is based on atrocity propaganda. Legal people have tried to fit square pegs into round holes. We try and seek the real story. All camps had multiple functions, some of which have come to light. Instead of trying to understand those functions you promulgate a fiction.

You dodged my question. Does it not bother you that your claim has little to no support from your fellow revisionists and they have their own theories that contradict yours? Does it not bother you that you do not even stick to your theory?

[HansHill]

What fallacy are you referring to? Explaining my position regarding the chemistry argument is not a fallacy.

Begging the Question.

I have repeatedly explained that I find Green's arguments about the difference in usage between a delousing chamber and homicidal gassings, time of exposure, washing walls etc, convincing. I would expect there to be no discolouration and less residue in the chamber that uses less Zyklon B, for shorter periods of time and is washed afterwards. I would expect that in many different situations, where something is exposed to something else. It is common sense that the lower the exposure, and washing, the less the residue.

Emphasis mine. Great we are finally getting somewhere, however this has been extremely painful and laborious as tends to be the case with you. Let's explore this.

With the quote below from earlier in this thread, and others, you concede that you fail to understand the rationale for both Dr Green and Rudolf's arguments respectively. Your honesty with this admission is immediately eroded by pretending this rationale is above the level of a generalist, where I have demonstrated it is not. To repeat: Both Dr Green and Rudolf succeed in addressing their arguments to a general audience. I have shown you evidence where other readers have understood the core arguments, and one "holocaust-educator-activist" was so impressed by Green's clarity, they used it as a teaching aide. Additionally, Dr Green wrote a report for the Lipstadt trial which was never presented due to Rudolf's prior withdrawal, that was intended to be read and understood by non-specialists also. You have no excuse for playing dumb that you cannot be expected to understand the science supporting these men's arguments.

I understand their arguments, but not necessarily the science behind the argument. It is clear that you do not understand that. You have repeatedly failed to explain why I am wrong to say that since the evidence is that gassings took place, Rudolf is wrong and Green is correct.

I assume you are aware that Rudolf has addressed the points you raised (exposure time and washing - he also addressed the pH but you were clever enough to drop that from your posts, since you botched it so badly earlier and could sense I was ready to pounce on your sloppiness, well done). Furthermore I also assume you don't understand the science behind Rudolf's arguments despite them being tailored to a generalist audience also, and as such have no reasons for disbelieving them, other than yet again, the eyewitnesses.

Why is this important? Because this bears all the hallmarks of ideological thinking. Were I to continue to push you as to why you are convinced by Dr Green, and unconvinced by Rudolf, you will continually retreat back to the support offered by the eyewitnesses.

All of this means, your facade of "convergence" isn't convergence at all. Were Dr Green's arguments really to converge with the eyewitness, they would do so independently of their support. You seemingly lack the modest comprehension skills for this point to land, but everyone else here commenting understands this.

History and criminal acts are never proven by a stand alone forensic analysis.

And yet, forensic analysis is not only permitted in criminal trials, but actively sought out and considered extremely desirable where possible.

At most, all Green can do is prove the residue is roughly consistent with the described usage of the Kremas as gas chambers. He cannot prove they were used for homicidal gassings. You are revealing your ignorance of evidencing, thinking that a chemical analysis should be able to prove homicidal mass gassings.

Strawman. He doesn't need to prove they were used for gassing. What he took it upon himself to do, is to present a compelling argument as to why the residues are not present at the levels expected. At this, both he and Markiewicz have failed. Your conviction that he succeeded, is belied by the fact that you still require support by the eyewitnesses, and ignore Rudolf's rebuttals. This is yet another poor reflection on you.

If more chemists studied the Krema remains, conducted analysis and experiments were run, that replicated conditions inside the chambers and repeatedly, they concluded that homicidal mass gassings did not take place, then revisionist would have a case. Scientists know that one claim on its own is never enough to prove something. Since other chemists disagree with Rudolf, that weakens his claim.

I agree, more testing should be done, but we both know that ideologues like you and the legal systems they operate in prevent this from being possible. Any chemist attempting to do this would be fired (if not arrested or assassinated). Pretending that this is just something Revisionists casually don't bother with, ignoring the perils, is dishonest beyond belief.

You are so bound to denying gassings took place, that you would never agree with a chemist who disagreed with Rudolf.

Correct, because Rudolf's rebuttals are more compelling than Dr Green's arguments.

[Nessie]

What fallacy are you referring to? Explaining my position regarding the chemistry argument is not a fallacy.

Begging the Question.

How have I used that fallacy?

I have repeatedly explained that I find Green's arguments about the difference in usage between a delousing chamber and homicidal gassings, time of exposure, washing walls etc, convincing. I would expect there to be no discolouration and less residue in the chamber that uses less Zyklon B, for shorter periods of time and is washed afterwards. I would expect that in many different situations, where something is exposed to something else. It is common sense that the lower the exposure, and washing, the less the residue.

Emphasis mine. Great we are finally getting somewhere, however this has been extremely painful and laborious as tends to be the case with you.

You should pay attention, because I have been saying that for a long time now.

Let's explore this.

With the quote below from earlier in this thread, and others, you concede that you fail to understand the rationale for both Dr Green and Rudolf's arguments respectively. Your honesty with this admission is immediately eroded by pretending this rationale is above the level of a generalist, where I have demonstrated it is not. To repeat: Both Dr Green and Rudolf succeed in addressing their arguments to a general audience. I have shown you evidence where other readers have understood the core arguments, and one "holocaust-educator-activist" was so impressed by Green's clarity, they used it as a teaching aide. Additionally, Dr Green wrote a report for the Lipstadt trial which was never presented due to Rudolf's prior withdrawal, that was intended to be read and understood by non-specialists also. You have no excuse for playing dumb that you cannot be expected to understand the science supporting these men's arguments.

I understand their arguments, but not necessarily the science behind the argument. It is clear that you do not understand that. You have repeatedly failed to explain why I am wrong to say that since the evidence is that gassings took place, Rudolf is wrong and Green is correct.

That is me explaining I understand the rationale behind their arguments. I cannot comment with any authority on the test results and chemistry they discuss.

I assume you are aware that Rudolf has addressed the points you raised (exposure time and washing - he also addressed the pH but you were clever enough to drop that from your posts, since you botched it so badly earlier and could sense I was ready to pounce on your sloppiness, well done). Furthermore I also assume you don't understand the science behind Rudolf's arguments despite them being tailored to a generalist audience also, and as such have no reasons for disbelieving them, other than yet again, the eyewitnesses.

Yes, I know Rudolf thinks he has addressed points about washing and painting walls, exposure time, the explosion and resulting flooding and exposure to the weather. No, I cannot comment with any authority on the science behind Rudolf's arguments, but then again, neither can you. Being tailored to a generalist audience does not therefore mean it is readily understandable and someone with no chemistry will be able to comment with authority on the chemistry.

I have all the witnesses, documents and circumstantial evidence around the operation of the Kremas, to prove they were used for gassings.

Why is this important? Because this bears all the hallmarks of ideological thinking. Were I to continue to push you as to why you are convinced by Dr Green, and unconvinced by Rudolf, you will continually retreat back to the support offered by the eyewitnesses.

Not just the eyewitnesses. There are the documents that record the modification of the Kremas to include undressing rooms, gas chambers and ovens for multiple corpse cremations for a secret operation involving infirm prisoners, Jews and Hungarians, along with the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, selections, and all the people sent to the Kremas disappearing. Then there is evidence of motive and opportunity. So, a lot more than just the eyewitnesses.

All of this means, your facade of "convergence" isn't convergence at all. Were Dr Green's arguments really to converge with the eyewitness, they would do so independently of their support. You seemingly lack the modest comprehension skills for this point to land, but everyone else here commenting understands this.

The witness, documentary, circumstantial evidence converges to prove mass gassings. That is supported by the evidence of motive and opportunity.

History and criminal acts are never proven by a stand alone forensic analysis.

And yet, forensic analysis is not only permitted in criminal trials, but actively sought out and considered extremely desirable where possible.

Indeed, but it never stands alone to prove a crime such as mass murder. It is always accompanied by converging corroborating evidence from other sources.

Strawman. He doesn't need to prove they were used for gassing. What he took it upon himself to do, is to present a compelling argument as to why the residues are not present at the levels expected. At this, both he and Markiewicz have failed. Your conviction that he succeeded, is belied by the fact that you still require support by the eyewitnesses, and ignore Rudolf's rebuttals. This is yet another poor reflection on you.

In your opinion Green and Markiewicz have failed. In my opinion Rudolf has failed. My opinion is supported by the evidence of what happened. Your opinion is not.

I agree, more testing should be done, but we both know that ideologues like you and the legal systems they operate in prevent this from being possible. Any chemist attempting to do this would be fired (if not arrested or assassinated). Pretending that this is just something Revisionists casually don't bother with, ignoring the perils, is dishonest beyond belief.

AFAIK, testing by various sides agree on the relative lack of residue, especially compared with delousing chambers. The argument is now about what the test results mean.

You are so bound to denying gassings took place, that you would never agree with a chemist who disagreed with Rudolf.

Correct, because Rudolf's rebuttals are more compelling than Dr Green's arguments.

In your opinion, which is not backed by any evidence from the Kremas.

[HansHill]

This response is such utter goyslop.

[Eye of Zyclone]

A Drahtnetzeinschießvorrichtung couldn't possibly be a wire mesh column for the introduction of Zyklon B in a gas chamber because it's a male word and a column for the introduction of Zyklon B (i.e. a hollow device to be filled with Zyklon B pellets) would have been named after a female word. So the Drahtnetzeinschießvorrichtung in that inventory sheet was a wire mesh stretcher for the introduction of dead bodies in crematory ovens or just a botched documentary forgery made by someone with little knowledge of the German language.

Your opinion on what word the Germans would use, has no evidential value. Evidence comes from contemporaneous sources, such as witnesses who worked inside the Kremas.

Assessing the validity of evidence, especially of palpable evidence, is of course the first step in any research work after collecting data. What would be the point of debating ad nauseam on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin before knowing if angels even exist.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't worship and unconditionally take at face value so-called eyewitness testimonies like you do if I brought you a few Arabs claiming that they've seen Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian prisoners' asses with broomsticks.

...

You have dodged my point that your opinion on how Germans would describe a mesh column used to insert, contain and retrieve Zyklon B pellets from a gas chamber, has no evidential value.

I've dodged nothing. Such lexical incongruities are not an opinion and debunk that kind of documentary evidence. If I had claimed to prove the mass gassing of Palestinian prisoners by the Israeli army with a piece of paper containing an erroneous Hebrew word, you would have replied (1) that it documents something else, something innocuous and common, or (2) that it's an obvious sign of forgery made by someone with a poor understanding of the Hebrew language.

But you have dodged (see the ellipsis above) my comment on you taking the testimonies that confirm your belief in the Holocaust at face value, uncritically, and about you not doing the same thing with testimonies about Israeli atrocities. And you have also dodged my comment about the mendacious testimonies on which Gulf War One and Gulf War Two were based.

All the people who have claimed to have witnessed mass gassings, cremations and pyres have had their claims checked, by ensuring there is evidence they were at the camps at the relevant times and that their claims are corroborated. Transport records, witnesses identifying each other and specialist knowledge are ways to verify witness presence. Revisionists pretend that the witnesses wildly diverge in their stories, but that is not true. Those who saw what happened, as opposed to hearsay, are consistent in their testimony, with widespread agreement.

So, according to your own evidentiary standards, proving that some Palestinians were indeed imprisoned in an Israeli detention center is enough to prove that all their wildest atrocity stories about that detention center are true. Noted.

When revisionists try to evidence what happened, they fall apart. TII is variously claimed to have been a transit camp, hygiene station, property sorting centre and customs post!

Delousing deportees at a train station where people and goods had to be disembarked and re-embarked anyway (different railway gauges between Western and Eastern Europe) seems like a very good idea. Of course much less expensive and impractical than building a delousing station at every camp and ghetto of Eastern Europe.

The A-B Kremas are claimed to have been for mass showering, delousing chambers, corpse stores and bomb shelters!

Those showering and delousing facilities never materialized. Just a project motivated by a health emergency and dropped when advanced delousing facilities were finally built.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... au-in-the/

The function of corpse stores is what the blueprints (leichenkeller) say. Even a major antirevisionist researcher like Jean-Claude Pressac didn't try to deny that those places were built as morgues.

And designing a room so that it can be used for another function in case of need (in this instance, gas-tight air-raid shelters in case of aerial bombings with chemical weapons) is not rare, suspect or surprising. In a situation of scarce resources, building facilities exclusively devoted to the prevention of a hypothetical chemical war would have been a big waste of time and materials.

That has happened because none of the revisionists have any relevant experience invstigating history, or criminality and they do not really know what they are doing. The result is not revisionism, it is denial. They deny mass gassings took place and then fail to follow on to an evidenced, logical conclusion.

Not a logical conclusion. A prejudiced conclusion. Like ghosts hunters who see proofs of their preconceived beliefs in every creaking door of a "haunted" house...

[Nessie]

A Drahtnetzeinschießvorrichtung couldn't possibly be a wire mesh column for the introduction of Zyklon B in a gas chamber because it's a male word and a column for the introduction of Zyklon B (i.e. a hollow device to be filled with Zyklon B pellets) would have been named after a female word. So the Drahtnetzeinschießvorrichtung in that inventory sheet was a wire mesh stretcher for the introduction of dead bodies in crematory ovens or just a botched documentary forgery made by someone with little knowledge of the German language.

Your opinion on what word the Germans would use, has no evidential value. Evidence comes from contemporaneous sources, such as witnesses who worked inside the Kremas.

Assessing the validity of evidence, especially of palpable evidence, is of course the first step in any research work after collecting data. What would be the point of debating ad nauseam on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin before knowing if angels even exist.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't worship and unconditionally take at face value so-called eyewitness testimonies like you do if I brought you a few Arabs claiming that they've seen Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian prisoners' asses with broomsticks.

...

You have dodged my point that your opinion on how Germans would describe a mesh column used to insert, contain and retrieve Zyklon B pellets from a gas chamber, has no evidential value.

I've dodged nothing. Such lexical incongruities are not an opinion and debunk that kind of documentary evidence. If I had claimed to prove the mass gassing of Palestinian prisoners by the Israeli army with a piece of paper containing an erroneous Hebrew word, you would have replied (1) that it documents something else, something innocuous and common, or (2) that it's an obvious sign of forgery made by someone with a poor understanding of the Hebrew language.

Strawman fallacy by you. I have not claimed one document proves mass gassing.

But you have dodged (see the ellipsis above) my comment on you taking the testimonies that confirm your belief in the Holocaust at face value, uncritically, and about you not doing the same thing with testimonies about Israeli atrocities. And you have also dodged my comment about the mendacious testimonies on which Gulf War One and Gulf War Two were based.

Strawman fallacy by you. I do not take any testimony uncritically, at face value. That applies to the Holocaust, Israeli claims about the war in Gaza, or the Gulf Wars. For testimony to be prove to be true, it HAS to be corroborated by evidence that is independent of the witness and itself corroborated.

All the people who have claimed to have witnessed mass gassings, cremations and pyres have had their claims checked, by ensuring there is evidence they were at the camps at the relevant times and that their claims are corroborated. Transport records, witnesses identifying each other and specialist knowledge are ways to verify witness presence. Revisionists pretend that the witnesses wildly diverge in their stories, but that is not true. Those who saw what happened, as opposed to hearsay, are consistent in their testimony, with widespread agreement.

So, according to your own evidentiary standards, proving that some Palestinians were indeed imprisoned in an Israeli detention center is enough to prove that all their wildest atrocity stories about that detention center are true. Noted.

Strawman fallacy by you. I said that the witnesses were checked to ensure they were at the camp AND their claims are corroborated. For example, the claim about mass arrivals, is corroborated by documents recording mass arrivals.

When revisionists try to evidence what happened, they fall apart. TII is variously claimed to have been a transit camp, hygiene station, property sorting centre and customs post!

Delousing deportees at a train station where people and goods had to be disembarked and re-embarked anyway (different railway gauges between Western and Eastern Europe) seems like a very good idea. Of course much less expensive and impractical than building a delousing station at every camp and ghetto of Eastern Europe.

So, you say it was a hygiene camp, for passengers to use before they went on trains to change to wider gauge trains. I take it that means you think the revisionists who came up with transit camp, property sorting centre and customs post are wrong. Why can you guys not get your story straight? Is it because none of you have any experience in investigations?

The A-B Kremas are claimed to have been for mass showering, delousing chambers, corpse stores and bomb shelters!

Those showering and delousing facilities never materialized. Just a project motivated by a health emergency and dropped when advanced delousing facilities were finally built.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... au-in-the/

The function of corpse stores is what the blueprints (leichenkeller) say. Even a major antirevisionist researcher like Jean-Claude Pressac didn't try to deny that those places were built as morgues.

And designing a room so that it can be used for another function in case of need (in this instance, gas-tight air-raid shelters in case of aerial bombings with chemical weapons) is not rare, suspect or surprising. In a situation of scarce resources, building facilities exclusively devoted to the prevention of a hypothetical chemical war would have been a big waste of time and materials.

What were the Leichenkellers in the Kremas used for 1943-4? Or will you admit you don't know what to do to find out?

That has happened because none of the revisionists have any relevant experience investigating history, or criminality and they do not really know what they are doing. The result is not revisionism, it is denial. They deny mass gassings took place and then fail to follow on to an evidenced, logical conclusion.

Not a logical conclusion. A prejudiced conclusion. Like ghosts hunters who see proofs of their preconceived beliefs in every creaking door of a "haunted" house...

You are correct, so-called revisionists cannot produce an evidenced, logically concluded history of the Holocaust. A total failure on their part.

[HansHill]

Holocaust Encyclopedia has entries addressing this slop.

[Hektor]

They did not calculate. The method seems to be guessing. But I presume they got some figures somewhere and then concocted up a figure that sounds plausible to a gullible audience. Note that the figures don't correspond with any death record although Holocaustians like to assert that their narrative is 'well documented'...

Exactly. Bombsaway either missed my question, or didn't have the cajones to answer because he knew it was a bad look for him. I don't care either way.

I already said it was due to tracking the amount coming through documented transports, that then disappeared in terms of paper trail.

viewtopic.php?p=7657#p7657

That's indeed a line of argument there.
But there if absent paper trail proves that people are dead. Then a very large amount of people must have died, which is never asserted that they died. And homicide in any form has as requirement that people died.