Comments on other threads.

[Nessie]

You claimed he was an eyewitness. The burden of proof is on you to prove that British POWs either worked at the Dachau gas chambers, or were taken there to witness gassings. All the other gas chamber eyewitnesses I have read give some details about the chamber and gassings. He just makes a simple, vague reference.

It's very simple Nessie. If you wish to discard his testimony on technical grounds such as hearsay, fine - I am listening, and I'm open to that line of argument. Explain specifically why, from the testimony, that it should be taken as hearsay in it's given context? Who is he citing? Where does he explain that he became aware of this hearsay? Where in the transcript does the court discard this testimony and eject the witness?

"Me mum said men were gassed at Dachau" - Is that what he said?

Give me something to work with here. Without context of the above kind, we can only go on what is presented, which is an authoritative matter of fact statement that men were gassed. Which unfortunately for you, means he and all the other eyewitnesses were lying to the court, and in turn, the court was complicit in these fabrications.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that British POWs either worked at the Dachau gas chambers, or were taken there to witness gassings.

I am rejecting this challenge as bad faith and dishonest. This obviously cannot be done, because there were no gassings for him to be at. That's the whole point, he like all your other witnesses, is lying.

The burden of proof is on you, to prove he was an eyewitness. You state that there were no gassings for him to see, so why did you call him an eyewitness?

You can reject my point about POWs all you want. No POW has ever claimed to have worked at a gas chamber. There is no evidence, from any camp, of the Nazis using POWs to work a gas chamber, or taking them to witness a gassing. You know that, but you still called him an eyewitness.

Since his evidence is hearsay, you cannot prove he lied. He likely heard rumours and repeated them, which is what many witnesses do. That is not lying, unless you can prove he knew what he was stating was not true. But when there is an eyewitness to limited gassings, that makes your task impossible.

Genuine investigators, so not you, have traced evidence, and found one eyewitness claim and some hearsay and that is why gassings at Dachau are regarded as unproven and there is no evidence of mass gassings there.

[Eye of Zyclone]

for example, mass gassings at Dachau. There is no evidence mass gassings took place, which proves there were no such gassings.

Holohoaxers didn't drop the Dachau gas chamber story because it turned out that there was no evidence mass gassings took place in Dachau. They dropped it because it was becoming increasingly embarrassing and so dangerous for the whole gas chamber myth.

Just a minor point to add here. Nessie as usual is wrong. There was indeed evidence that mass gassings took place at Dachau.

Eyewitnesses such as Dr Franz Blaha testified to seeing the gassings with his own eyes.

Many executions by gas or shooting or injections took place right in the camp. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still alive, and the remainder appeared to be dead. Their eyes were red, and their faces were swollen. Many prisoners were later killed in this way. Afterwards they were removed to the crematorium where I had to examine their teeth for gold.

IMT - Day 32

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-11-46.asp

Another eyewitness, a welshman named Sergeant Evan Llewellyn Edwards

"At Dachau, men were gassed in hundreds, kicked to death, died from starvation," Wyn told the trial.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-52444284

Historians also continued with the gassing claims, such as:

Dachau was used as a school for torture techniques – as well as the widespread medical experimentation carried out by doctors of tropical medicine, aviation experts and creators of poisonous gases. "Dachau was the nucleus of National Socialist terror," said historian Wolfgang Benz

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... -ss-terror

And finally, three members of Justice Jackson's legal team provided affidavits to the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Dachau, these were James B. Donovan, Lt Colonel Calvin Behle, and Lt Hugh Daly. David Irving, Nuremberg The Last Battle p 197

So as you can see, these obviously fraudulent gas chambers are every bit as """"""evidenced""""" as those at Birkenau. In fact, they are even more evidenced, because you can go there and walk around them today.

That's true, Hans. The nonexistent gas chamber(s) of Dachau was (were) proven by all kinds of corroborating [bogus] evidence (sic) such as false testimonies from various sources (including U.S. soldiers and Polish priests), false confessions from camp guards, physical evidence (including gastight doors and cans of Zyklon B) and other circumstancial evidence (as Holohoaxers put it).

[Nessie]

Holohoaxers didn't drop the Dachau gas chamber story because it turned out that there was no evidence mass gassings took place in Dachau. They dropped it because it was becoming increasingly embarrassing and so dangerous for the whole gas chamber myth.

Just a minor point to add here. Nessie as usual is wrong. There was indeed evidence that mass gassings took place at Dachau.

Eyewitnesses such as Dr Franz Blaha testified to seeing the gassings with his own eyes.

Many executions by gas or shooting or injections took place right in the camp. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still alive, and the remainder appeared to be dead. Their eyes were red, and their faces were swollen. Many prisoners were later killed in this way. Afterwards they were removed to the crematorium where I had to examine their teeth for gold.

IMT - Day 32

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-11-46.asp

Another eyewitness, a welshman named Sergeant Evan Llewellyn Edwards

"At Dachau, men were gassed in hundreds, kicked to death, died from starvation," Wyn told the trial.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-52444284

Historians also continued with the gassing claims, such as:

Dachau was used as a school for torture techniques – as well as the widespread medical experimentation carried out by doctors of tropical medicine, aviation experts and creators of poisonous gases. "Dachau was the nucleus of National Socialist terror," said historian Wolfgang Benz

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... -ss-terror

And finally, three members of Justice Jackson's legal team provided affidavits to the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Dachau, these were James B. Donovan, Lt Colonel Calvin Behle, and Lt Hugh Daly. David Irving, Nuremberg The Last Battle p 197

So as you can see, these obviously fraudulent gas chambers are every bit as """"""evidenced""""" as those at Birkenau. In fact, they are even more evidenced, because you can go there and walk around them today.

That's true, Hans. The nonexistent gas chamber(s) of Dachau was (were) proven by all kinds of corroborating [bogus] evidence (sic) such as false testimonies from various sources (including U.S. soldiers and Polish priests), false confessions from camp guards, physical evidence (including gastight doors and cans of Zyklon B) and other circumstancial evidence (as Holohoaxers put it).

....

Historians investigated the hearsay reports etc and found a lack of primary sourced evidence to prove mass gassings and even the evidence of possible limited gassings means that is unproven. That is real revisionism, something the so-called revisionists here cannot do!

[HansHill]

.

Infographic haul for the ages, Zyclone! Thank you - saved for posterity.

And yes, the very same evidence in volume and kind that we are being asked to discard for Dachau, is what we are being asked to accept for Birkenau. I like this one particularly given the above exchanges:



I challenged Nessie to show where in the trial procedings that evidence of the gas chambers was rejected as hearsay. Of course I knew this wasn't the case. This clipping demonstrates my exact argument. The defense raised the exact objection that Nessie attempted above, that the claims such as those by Edwards were vague and hearsay, and could not possibly hold evidentiary value yet they were overruled by the court and accepted as presented, not as hearsay.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Rubbish. For a start, so-called revisionists are trying to evidence there were no mass killings in gas chambers. Then it is possible to prove a negative,

You have patently never read a single Holocaust revisionist book. Holocaust revisionists expose the technical impossibilities of the orthodox narrative, point out that there exists no such a thing as solid tangible evidence for the Holocaust, and demonstrate that the alleged "criminal traces" of the Holocaust are not what they're claimed to be. That's not what's called proving a negative. That's showing the emptiness and fragility of the Holocaust case.

No, it is proving a negative, meaning you are proving something did not happen, exist, or it is false. You have just described the ways so-called revisionists try to do that. If something is technically impossible, then that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

No, it's not. Demonstrating that something couldn't possibly happen for technical reasons doesn't amount to proving that it didn't happen. The latter is a logical consequence of the former, but both approaches are different things.

for example, mass gassings at Dachau. There is no evidence mass gassings took place, which proves there were no such gassings.

Holohoaxers didn't drop the Dachau gas chamber story because it turned out that there was no evidence mass gassings took place in Dachau. They dropped it because it was becoming increasingly embarrassing (or "a cesspool of controversy" as they poetically put it back then) and so dangerous for the whole gas chamber myth. When they did that, they believed that the Iron Curtain would last for centuries and the bogus gas chambers of the Holocaust would be safe from scrutiny and exposure for a very long time behind it.

But you can still find a whole load of information about the Dachau gas chambers, so how is it dangerous to the gassing claims as a whole? The answer is that it is not. It shows that some investigations were flawed and that not all camps alleged to be death camps, with mass gassings, were such.

Feel free to show the papers in which orthodox/antirevisionist historians demonstrated that the gas chamber(s) of Dachau was (were) just a propaganda lie devoid of any solid evidence. You can't do that because there exist no such papers. Orthodox/antirevisionist historians just stopped claiming that anyone was gassed to death in Dachau.

how is it dangerous to the gassing claims as a whole?

It is dangerous to the gassing claims as a whole because it shows that some victors with an agenda can easily & dishonestly prove the existence of nonexistence things with bogus evidence when they need it. Nobody still believes today that the Soviets who 'documented' the gas chambers of Auschwitz & Treblinka were more honest & reliable than the Anglo-American Allies who 'documented' the gas chambers of Dachau & Buchenwald.

Only a die hard conspiracists thinks it is possible to pull off such a hoax and maintain it. It would be impossible to not notice there is a complete lack of people who had their hands cut off, when there should be six million.

Having people state that they had talked to someone who saw it with their own eyes was more than enough to keep the hoax alive as long as necessary. And the endorsement of the hoax by authority figures like Lord Bryce easily turned that belief into a strong faith. Never underestimate the gullibility of average people.

You are dodging my point that a hoax about 6 million children having their hands cut off, would never survive as an accepted history, without evidence of that happening. All of those news stories and the hoax about children having the hands cut off never survived, proves my point.

Nope, the story about children having their hands cut off didn't survive because the victors stopped telling it after WW1 and didn't hold postwar Soviet-style show trials to produce and record bogus evidence (like false testimonies and false confessions) for it.

You have dodged my point that all of those countries admit to assisting the Nazis, when it is against their national interests to do that.

What does that have to do with what happened and didn't happen to Jews in the camps where they were deported to ???

And you dodged my point that the very numerous Jews who were in Western countries without having citizenship had no good reason(s) to return to countries that disliked them enough to assist the Nazis and help the latter to kick them out during WW2.

They had reason to return to their original country and reclaim their homes etc.

Would you return to a country that handed you over to the Nazis for deportation when given the opportunity to resettle in Israel or America? Total nonsense!

Historians have been able to trace all the displaced people from WWII and there is evidence of how many Jews moved to Palestine or the USA, which leaves one huge 6 million hole that no one, let along so-called revisionists can account for. You demand evidence they were killed, but are quite happy to believe they lived, with no evidence.

That's a lie. No historian could of course trace the over 40 million people displaced by war in Europe alone from 1939 to 1945. That's a grotesque bluff.

Too bad the "evidence" of how many Jews moved to Palestine or the USA was provided by the ardent Zionists who headed "Israel" and the United States back then. They of course had very good reasons to lie and downplay those numbers. If some pro-Hamas officials claimed tomorrow that 1.1 million Palestinians vanished in Gaza since October 2023, would you regard it as a hard fact proven by an impartial source?

The problem for you is that the Nazis kept records of the Jews they identified, registered and arrested and the documentary trails for millions of them stops in certain specific camps. That is unlike many displaced people. They disappeared after they had been arrested and taken into custody.

It's not a problem, especially when Holohoaxers conceded that there exists no paper trail for the execution of those people in gas chambers. Too bad for you sinister conjectures are not evidence.

There is no evidence in what you linked to. I would not prosecute based only on a confession.

Who's the denier now?

You are. It clearly confuses you that I would not accept confessions alone as evidence.

The Jewish encyclopedia reproduced in the pic above clearly states that the Jewish ritual murders were proved by more than confessions alone. It's unambiguously stated that those prosecutors and officials "made the decision to conduct formal criminal investigations" and that "their cases also relied to a large extent on the opinions of a variety of expert witnesses --- physicians, forensic scientists, criminologists, theologians, and academic scholars of Judaism" and were "articulated through the idioms of scientific discourse and rationality."

But still good to see you finally concede that confessions and testimonies have no intrinsic probative value!!! Better late than never!

According to you, Nazis falsely confessed, whether they were given death, heavy or light sentences. You just come with ad hoc excuses to dismiss all the evidence you do not want to believe. You are just making things up!

No accused can possibly know what sentence he'll get at the end of his trial. He can only TRY to secure a sentence as light as possible for himself through a defense strategy or another. Your 'argument' is an anachronistic nonsense because indictment always precedes verdict. Too bad your brain is too small to understand that simple truth. Really pathetic.

Nazis on trial in Germany and Austria, knew they did not face the death sentence and they were likely to get light sentences. Yet they still did not deny the killings.

They were likely to get light sentences only if they did not deny the killings ad even more if they falsely confessed those nonexistent killings. Perjury (or at least silence) for immunity (or a minute prison sentence). Basic defense strategy.

[Eye of Zyclone]

.

Infographic haul for the ages, Zyclone! Thank you - saved for posterity.

And yes, the very same evidence in volume and kind that we are being asked to discard for Dachau, is what we are being asked to accept for Birkenau. I like this one particularly given the above exchanges:



I challenged Nessie to show where in the trial procedings that evidence of the gas chambers was rejected as hearsay. Of course I knew this wasn't the case. This clipping demonstrates my exact argument. The defense raised the exact objection that Nessie attempted above, that the claims such as those by Edwards were vague and hearsay, and could not possibly hold evidentiary value yet they were overruled by the court and accepted as presented, not as hearsay.

Thank you, Hans. Appreciation much appreciated.

Here under are a few more graphics :






https://i.postimg.cc/J1SNd1vp/Holocaust ... remato.png
















https://i.postimg.cc/mBPnPDRr/Holocaust ... etters.png

[Nessie]

You have patently never read a single Holocaust revisionist book. Holocaust revisionists expose the technical impossibilities of the orthodox narrative, point out that there exists no such a thing as solid tangible evidence for the Holocaust, and demonstrate that the alleged "criminal traces" of the Holocaust are not what they're claimed to be. That's not what's called proving a negative. That's showing the emptiness and fragility of the Holocaust case.

No, it is proving a negative, meaning you are proving something did not happen, exist, or it is false. You have just described the ways so-called revisionists try to do that. If something is technically impossible, then that is evidence to prove it did not happen.

No, it's not. Demonstrating that something couldn't possibly happen for technical reasons doesn't amount to proving that it didn't happen. The latter is a logical consequence of the former, but both approaches are different things.

The problems with the so-called revisionist argument are that, just because they believe gassings are not technically impossible, does not prove they did not happen and the Germans were perfectly capable of building functional gas chambers.

Holohoaxers didn't drop the Dachau gas chamber story because it turned out that there was no evidence mass gassings took place in Dachau. They dropped it because it was becoming increasingly embarrassing (or "a cesspool of controversy" as they poetically put it back then) and so dangerous for the whole gas chamber myth. When they did that, they believed that the Iron Curtain would last for centuries and the bogus gas chambers of the Holocaust would be safe from scrutiny and exposure for a very long time behind it.

But you can still find a whole load of information about the Dachau gas chambers, so how is it dangerous to the gassing claims as a whole? The answer is that it is not. It shows that some investigations were flawed and that not all camps alleged to be death camps, with mass gassings, were such.

Feel free to show the papers in which orthodox/antirevisionist historians demonstrated that the gas chamber(s) of Dachau was (were) just a propaganda lie devoid of any solid evidence. You can't do that because there exist no such papers. Orthodox/antirevisionist historians just stopped claiming that anyone was gassed to death in Dachau.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... cle/dachau

"There is no credible evidence that the gas chamber in Barrack X was used to murder human beings."

how is it dangerous to the gassing claims as a whole?

It is dangerous to the gassing claims as a whole because it shows that some victors with an agenda can easily & dishonestly prove the existence of nonexistence things with bogus evidence when they need it. Nobody still believes today that the Soviets who 'documented' the gas chambers of Auschwitz & Treblinka were more honest & reliable than the Anglo-American Allies who 'documented' the gas chambers of Dachau & Buchenwald.

Pretty much ever war has atrocity stories that later research establishes are not true. Gassings at Dachau is one of them. The Soviet investigations were poor. Subsequent investigations, such as those by German prosecutors and historians, have established that A-B and TII were sites used for mass gassings.

Having people state that they had talked to someone who saw it with their own eyes was more than enough to keep the hoax alive as long as necessary. And the endorsement of the hoax by authority figures like Lord Bryce easily turned that belief into a strong faith. Never underestimate the gullibility of average people.

You are dodging my point that a hoax about 6 million children having their hands cut off, would never survive as an accepted history, without evidence of that happening. All of those news stories and the hoax about children having the hands cut off never survived, proves my point.

Nope, the story about children having their hands cut off didn't survive because the victors stopped telling it after WW1 and didn't hold postwar Soviet-style show trials to produce and record bogus evidence (like false testimonies and false confessions) for it.

It did not survive, because of the lack of credible evidence, the same reason I quoted USHMM above, about the gas chamber at Dachau.

What does that have to do with what happened and didn't happen to Jews in the camps where they were deported to ???

And you dodged my point that the very numerous Jews who were in Western countries without having citizenship had no good reason(s) to return to countries that disliked them enough to assist the Nazis and help the latter to kick them out during WW2.

They had reason to return to their original country and reclaim their homes etc.

Would you return to a country that handed you over to the Nazis for deportation when given the opportunity to resettle in Israel or America? Total nonsense!

To reclaim my home, business, property, yes I would. In any case, you cannot evidence 6 million Jews elaving Europe in 1945.

That's a lie. No historian could of course trace the over 40 million people displaced by war in Europe alone from 1939 to 1945. That's a grotesque bluff.

Too bad the "evidence" of how many Jews moved to Palestine or the USA was provided by the ardent Zionists who headed "Israel" and the United States back then. They of course had very good reasons to lie and downplay those numbers. If some pro-Hamas officials claimed tomorrow that 1.1 million Palestinians vanished in Gaza since October 2023, would you regard it as a hard fact proven by an impartial source?

The problem for you is that the Nazis kept records of the Jews they identified, registered and arrested and the documentary trails for millions of them stops in certain specific camps. That is unlike many displaced people. They disappeared after they had been arrested and taken into custody.

It's not a problem, especially when Holohoaxers conceded that there exists no paper trail for the execution of those people in gas chambers. Too bad for you sinister conjectures are not evidence.

The paper trail stops at certain camps, which is then circumstantial evidence that corroborates the killings. There is no conjecture they were gassed, it is proven by the evidence.

Who's the denier now?

You are. It clearly confuses you that I would not accept confessions alone as evidence.

The Jewish encyclopedia reproduced in the pic above clearly states that the Jewish ritual murders were proved by more than confessions alone. It's unambiguously stated that those prosecutors and officials "made the decision to conduct formal criminal investigations" and that "their cases also relied to a large extent on the opinions of a variety of expert witnesses --- physicians, forensic scientists, criminologists, theologians, and academic scholars of Judaism" and were "articulated through the idioms of scientific discourse and rationality."

But still good to see you finally concede that confessions and testimonies have no intrinsic probative value!!! Better late than never!

I have made no such concession.

No accused can possibly know what sentence he'll get at the end of his trial. He can only TRY to secure a sentence as light as possible for himself through a defense strategy or another. Your 'argument' is an anachronistic nonsense because indictment always precedes verdict. Too bad your brain is too small to understand that simple truth. Really pathetic.

Nazis on trial in Germany and Austria, knew they did not face the death sentence and they were likely to get light sentences. Yet they still did not deny the killings.

They were likely to get light sentences only if they did not deny the killings ad even more if they falsely confessed those nonexistent killings. Perjury (or at least silence) for immunity (or a minute prison sentence). Basic defense strategy.

IOW, you have no evidence, as usual.

[Eye of Zyclone]

.

Infographic haul for the ages, Zyclone! Thank you - saved for posterity.

And yes, the very same evidence in volume and kind that we are being asked to discard for Dachau, is what we are being asked to accept for Birkenau. I like this one particularly given the above exchanges:



I challenged Nessie to show where in the trial procedings that evidence of the gas chambers was rejected as hearsay. Of course I knew this wasn't the case. This clipping demonstrates my exact argument. The defense raised the exact objection that Nessie attempted above, that the claims such as those by Edwards were vague and hearsay, and could not possibly hold evidentiary value yet they were overruled by the court and accepted as presented, not as hearsay.

Thank you, Hans. Appreciation much appreciated.

Here under are a few more graphics :






https://i.postimg.cc/J1SNd1vp/Holocaust ... remato.png
















https://i.postimg.cc/3834wtpY/Holocaust ... m-Keeg.png




https://i.postimg.cc/mBPnPDRr/Holocaust ... etters.png

[Nessie]

All of those newspaper reports and people claiming there were gassings at Dachau, and the historians at USHMM say there is no credible evidence of gassings at Dachau. So much for a coordinated hoax.

[Keen]

The burden of proof is on you

Nesserto is playing the burden of proof card?

[Keen]

The burden of proof is on you

He did it again!!!

[Keen]

The paper trail stops at certain camps, which is then circumstantial evidence that corroborates the killings.

Until you look at the fact that there is virtually no physical evidence to support the unsubstantiated allegations of mass killings and burial. And that lack of physical evidence not only puts an end to the "covergence of unsubstantiated allegations" theory, it is PROOF that the mass killings did not happen as alleged.

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.

[Keen]

All of those newspaper reports and people claiming there were gassings at Dachau, and the historians at USHMM say there is no credible evidence of gassings at Dachau. So much for a coordinated hoax.

The "historians" at the UShMM also say that 925,000 jews were killed and buried at Treblinka II, despite the fact that the beat that they can do to "prove" it is this:

[Eye of Zyclone]

All of those newspaper reports and people claiming there were gassings at Dachau, and the historians at USHMM say there is no credible evidence of gassings at Dachau. So much for a coordinated hoax.

Getting rid of the most untenable parts of a lie doesn't invalidate the coordinated nature of a hoax. On the contrary, it's a common way to save a lie by protecting it from its biggest inconsistencies and most patently false components. Just a damage control strategy. Also happened to the kitsch Nazi soap hoax, a classic of any good Holocaust tale for 5 decades, which was liquidated by Holohoaxers in 1990 for no apparent reason.

[Keen]

All of those newspaper reports and people claiming there were gassings at Dachau, and the historians at USHMM say there is no credible evidence of gassings at Dachau. So much for a coordinated hoax.

Getting rid of the most untenable parts of a lie doesn't invalidate the coordinated nature of a hoax. On the contrary, it's a common way to save a lie by protecting it from its biggest inconsistencies and most patently false components. Just a damage control strategy. Also happened to the kitsch Nazi soap hoax, a classic of any good Holocaust tale for 5 decades, which was liquidated by Holohoaxers in 1990 for no apparent reason.

Exactly. Excellent observation.

Now if only revisionists would understand how they are being played by the jews when they have gotten rid of the most untenable parts of the "huge mass graves" lie. Most revisionists are just too stupid and especially too aragant to believe that they are getting played by the big-lie technique.