Convergance of evidence.

[Keen]

When the Allies, East and West, poured into Germany in 1945, it was now proven that millions of Jews who had been arrested, had disappear[ed].

Nessie, could you please describe the magical process that the Germans used to make jews disapear?

[Keen]

Revisionists do not like the convergence of evidence as a process, as they cannot make it work to support their beliefs. Instead, they try to pass off illogical arguments and misrepresentation, as if that is a reliable way to investigate history.

A lack of certain physical evidence of a specific alleged occurrence at an alleged crime scene can sometimes be considered ipso facto proof that that specific occurrence did not happen and that the crime did not play out as alleged, even if a crime did in fact happen and other elements of the crime did in fact occur as alleged.

So a lack of evidence for some allegations do not even need to "converge" with any other evidence to prove that something did not occur. Therefore, a lack of evidence is evidence, and, in some cases, can be considered ipso facto proof. An example of this is the classic:

I don't see an elephant in my basement. If there were an elephant in my basement, I would see it. Therefore there is no elephant in my basement.

The lack of visual evidence says it all. No other evidence is needed to prove that there is no elephant in one’s basement.

No visual affirmation of an elephant in one’s basement = not only evidence that there is no elephant in one’s basement, but ipso facto proof that there is no elephant in one’s basement.

I don't see the physical evidence for "huge mass graves" filled with the remains of over 2.1 million jews and tens of thousands of non jews at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II.( In fact, I don't see the physical evidence of even one.) If there were "huge mass graves" filled with the remains of over 2.1 million jews and tens of thousands of non jews at these sites, a retarded blind man with a toy plastic shovel could locate them in less than 5 minutes and the true believers could and would be able to point out their exact location. Therefore, I don't believe that there are "huge mass graves" filled with the remains of over 2.1 million jews and tens of thousands of non jews at these sites, much less believe the unsubstantiated allegations that they have been "proven" to exist - "scientifically" or otherwise.

No visual affirmation of physical evidence for the existence of "huge mass graves" at these sites = a logical belief that there are no “huge mass graves” at these sites.

One does not need to resort to the "convergence of evidence" method (which is, as is practiced by the holohoaxers, nothing but sophistry wrapped up in a new name) to prove that there is no elephant in one’s basement, and one does not need to resort to the "convergence of evidence" method to "prove" that over 2.1 million jews and tens of thousands of non jews are buried in "huge mass graves" at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II – if the physical evidence to prove it actually existed. The very fact that the holohoaxers have to resort to the "convergence of evidence method" to "prove" their mass graves allegations, is ipso facto proof that the alleged “huge mass graves” do not exist.

No physical evidence of “huge mass graves” at these sites = no holocausts at these sites.

Simple as that.

Conclusion: The convergence of the lack of physical evidence for the existence of “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II, is ipso facto proof that they do not exist.

* Here are your questions for the day Nessie:

IV - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Covering millions upon millions of pounds of bones and teeth with “a thick layer of sand” makes them magically disappear - ??

XIII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The following: “That which does not appear to exist is to be regarded as if it did not exist.” - is a legally recognized maxim of law in the U.S. - ??

[Nessie]

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.

The paper trail evidence is circumstantial evidence. The Nuremberg Race laws required the identification and registration of Jews. Those Jews were then arrested and sent to camps or ghettos. They were enemies of the Reich and their movements and whereabouts were tracked. When the ghettos started to close down, the paper trail was to specific camps and there, for the vast majority, that trail ended.

That circumstantial evidence of the ending of the paper trail converges with the eyewitness and other evidence of mass gassings. The various forms of evidence logically and chronologically fit into a conclusion. That is something so-called revisionists cannot do.

[Nazgul]

That circumstantial evidence of the ending of the paper trail converges with the eyewitness and other evidence of mass gassings. The various forms of evidence logically and chronologically fit into a conclusion. That is something so-called revisionists cannot do.

All there is are eye witness statements, false statements. Other evidence is sought to confirm those facts, with confirmational bias. There is not one bit of evidence presented to prove a single gassed Jew. Fritz Berg demanded this years ago, but the usual darting, diving and diverting topics was the tactic. Hard evidence please, not just the joining of dots to suit a religious belief which is all this is.

[Keen]

Revisionists do not like the convergence of evidence as a process, as they cannot make it work to support their beliefs. Instead, they try to pass off illogical arguments and misrepresentation, as if that is a reliable way to investigate history.

That circumstantial evidence of the ending of the paper trail converges with the eyewitness and other evidence of mass gassings. The various forms of evidence logically and chronologically fit into a conclusion. That is something so-called revisionists cannot do.

I can't speak for "revisionists" because I am not one, but I have no problem with the convergence of the lack of physical evidence method, which proves that there are no "huge mass graves" at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor or Treblinka II. (We can debate the definition of "huge" later - if Nessie ever grows a pair.)

The convergence of the lack of different forms of physical evidence, all of which would be in abundance if the orthodox story of the Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor or Treblinka II holocausts is true and the "eyewitnesses" were telling the truth, proves that the story isn't true and that the "eyewitnesses" were lying.

Unlike the sophistry employed by the exterminationists, whose use of the convergence of evidence method is used in an attempt to pass off fiction as fact, the convergence of the lack of physical evidence method actually proves that fiction is fiction. And, it's an incredibly easy method to use. Let me show everyone how easy and effective this method is. I'll start by asking Nessie two simple questions (which he "forgot" to answer yesterday):

Nessie,

IV - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Covering millions upon millions of pounds of bones and teeth with “a thick layer of sand” makes them magically disappear - ??

XIII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The following: “That which does not appear to exist is to be regarded as if it did not exist.” - is a legally recognized maxim of law in the U.S. - ??

It's really simple:

No physical evidence for the murder and burial in "huge mass graves" of over 2.1 million jews and tens of thousands of non jews at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II = ipso facto proof that there are no "huge mass graves" filled with over 2.1 million jews and tens of thousands of non jews at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II = no holocausts at these sites.

[Nessie]

... There is not one bit of evidence presented to prove a single gassed Jew...

That is a lie.

[Keen]

... There is not one bit of evidence presented to prove a single gassed Jew...

That is a lie.

Look at Nessie run!

[Keen]

I do not know exactly what Shemer said..

Nessie, did you know that, just like you, the sniveling coward / charleton Michael Shermer has been running away from debating Greg Gerdes for years?

[Nessie]

.... Hard evidence please, not just the joining of dots to suit a religious belief which is all this is.

Can you provide "hard evidence" to prove what Kremas II to V were used for, 1943-4? You need evidence from eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas, documents pertaining to their usage, physical evidence from the buildings and circumstantial evidence as to the function of the camp and what happened to the arriving mass transports. Other so-called revisionists have fallen apart when they have been asked to perform that basic task of historical investigation.

[Stubble]

This may shock you Nessie, but, the Kremas were used to cremate bodies of people who had died at the Auschwitz Birkenau camp.

[Keen]

Can you provide "hard evidence"

Nessie, on the slim chance that you've grown a pair and can muster the courage to answer a simple question:

How do you define "hard evidence"?

[Nessie]

This may shock you Nessie, but, the Kremas were used to cremate bodies of people who had died at the Auschwitz Birkenau camp.

Correct, c1.1 million of them, of whom c900,000 had been gassed. That is what the evidence tells us happened.

[Stubble]

This may shock you Nessie, but, the Kremas were used to cremate bodies of people who had died at the Auschwitz Birkenau camp.

Correct, c1.1 million of them, of whom c900,000 had been gassed. That is what the evidence tells us happened.

I see.

Perhaps you can say that in an appropriate thread, so that it can be rebutted again.

[Nessie]

This may shock you Nessie, but, the Kremas were used to cremate bodies of people who had died at the Auschwitz Birkenau camp.

Correct, c1.1 million of them, of whom c900,000 had been gassed. That is what the evidence tells us happened.

I see.

Perhaps you can say that in an appropriate thread, so that it can be rebutted again.

The convergence of evidence is about working out what happened, that is how history is normally investigated. Holocaust revisionists are really deniers, since they do not revise history, they "rebut" it.

[Nazgul]

... There is not one bit of evidence presented to prove a single gassed Jew...

That is a lie.

Please present the evidence to show it is mistaken. BTW using words like lies, liars is disrespectful, off topic. On a positive note thanks for not returning to RODOH.