Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes

[TlsMS93]

.....

I thought the Kremas were supposed to be corpse stores, or is it bomb shelters, or delousing chambers? I cannot keep up with all the contradictory revisionist hypothesis about the usage of the Kremas.

The problem with the revisionist investigation, is that it cannot prove actual usage or produce an evidenced chronology for each Krema and it has to ignore 100% of the witness and other evidence, that they were used for gassings. The standard of revisionist investigation is very poor, caused by their lack of training and inexperience in conducting such investigations.

And what proof do you have that they were gas chambers?

Here is a handy index of some of the documentary, witness and forensic evidence for gas chambers at A-B;

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

Are you accusing us of what you really are, a believer in agendas, or are you not Jewish? You cannot be impartial on this issue, just as most Holocaust historians are Jewish and the trials of Nazi criminals were totally influenced by Jews because the history was already established, the crimes were public knowledge, and the courts merely endorsed them and gave the appearance of authority.

Whilst I link to evidence, you admit to bias and an agenda.

You accuse us of not having evidence of the function of the Kremas. Wrong, you do dismiss evidence of sanitary use that was found in the camp archives and distort the cremation capacity and the lack of fuel to feed them in favor of an unproven technique of self-sustained cremation of bodies.

The various revisionist claims about the use of the Kremas are showers, delousing chambers, corpse stores and bomb shelters. That is hardly inspiring investigatory work. Revisionists suggest a sanitary use (a vague term), but cannot produce any evidence of a sanitary action taking place. It is revisionists who distort cremation capacities and think arguing that since they cannot find evidence of sufficient fuel deliveries and cannot believe engineer descriptions of how the ovens worked, is proof of no mass cremations.

A lot of loose evidence, misunderstandings, false testimonies and bad photographs where they say they were always being watched.

Most of these things have already been refuted. You can't offer a single irrefutable piece of evidence, you simply throw out tons of pamphlets and think that's enough, the so-called convergence of evidence, with that in hand I can also construct whatever I want from the Bible, for example.

[Nessie]

The problem with the revisionist investigation, is..... it has to ignore 100% of the witness and other evidence,

I don't accuse revisionists of ignoring testimony.

Give it over.

Quote mining out of context.

[Nessie]

....

The various revisionist claims about the use of the Kremas are showers, delousing chambers, corpse stores and bomb shelters. That is hardly inspiring investigatory work. Revisionists suggest a sanitary use (a vague term), but cannot produce any evidence of a sanitary action taking place. It is revisionists who distort cremation capacities and think arguing that since they cannot find evidence of sufficient fuel deliveries and cannot believe engineer descriptions of how the ovens worked, is proof of no mass cremations.

A lot of loose evidence, misunderstandings, false testimonies and bad photographs where they say they were always being watched.

A lot of corroborated evidence that chronologically leads to a proven conclusion.

Most of these things have already been refuted. You can't offer a single irrefutable piece of evidence, you simply throw out tons of pamphlets and think that's enough, the so-called convergence of evidence, with that in hand I can also construct whatever I want from the Bible, for example.

Your idea of refutation, is mere argument as to why you do not believe most of the evidence, as you rely heavily on a logical fallacy. I love the way you critique the evidenced history, as if you know how to gather evidence and prove what happened. Instead, you are like every other revisionist, you fail at that most basic of tasks.

[TlsMS93]

....

The various revisionist claims about the use of the Kremas are showers, delousing chambers, corpse stores and bomb shelters. That is hardly inspiring investigatory work. Revisionists suggest a sanitary use (a vague term), but cannot produce any evidence of a sanitary action taking place. It is revisionists who distort cremation capacities and think arguing that since they cannot find evidence of sufficient fuel deliveries and cannot believe engineer descriptions of how the ovens worked, is proof of no mass cremations.

A lot of loose evidence, misunderstandings, false testimonies and bad photographs where they say they were always being watched.

A lot of corroborated evidence that chronologically leads to a proven conclusion.

Most of these things have already been refuted. You can't offer a single irrefutable piece of evidence, you simply throw out tons of pamphlets and think that's enough, the so-called convergence of evidence, with that in hand I can also construct whatever I want from the Bible, for example.

Your idea of refutation, is mere argument as to why you do not believe most of the evidence, as you rely heavily on a logical fallacy. I love the way you critique the evidenced history, as if you know how to gather evidence and prove what happened. Instead, you are like every other revisionist, you fail at that most basic of tasks.

Yes, a Jew will teach me what evidence-based history is, you have the know-how in that.

[Numar Patru]

Yes, a Jew will teach me what evidence-based history is, you have the know-how in that.

Seriously? I’m supposed to treat posts like this politely?

[Stubble]

Yes, a Jew will teach me what evidence-based history is, you have the know-how in that.

Seriously? I’m supposed to treat posts like this politely?

The answer to speech you don't like should always be better speech, in my opinion.

Futher, it is my opinion that if you choose to engage with that post, it should be done politely as not to further instigate animus.

Another option would be to report it for one of 2 reasons. 1) off topic 2) personal attack. Both should merit removal.

Hope this helps.

If you would like further exposition on my particular point of view in this regard, feel free to reach out with a DM as I will not be engaging in thread derailment here.

It is important for all of us to remember to stay on topic and to adhere to the posting rules and forum guidelines. This is to foster a conducive environment for honest and open debate and to keep the surrounding temperature of the discourse at a simmer rather than a boil.

I think.

[TlsMS93]

Yes, a Jew will teach me what evidence-based history is, you have the know-how in that.

Seriously? I’m supposed to treat posts like this politely?

But it is a fact that Jews are great storytellers to teach a lesson, it is part of their ethos and it does not mean that it is bad, unless for the purpose of attacking other people.

Now the guy accuses me of not knowing how to gather evidence, when what he defends most here is extrapolating what is actually evidenced. He cannot determine the amount of ashes in the mass graves but claims that so many died because there are records of transportation or because the area containing ashes is very large.

Now is it true or not true that you have already called me an idiot here for free because I supposedly asked something that you claim I said? But am I going to expect education from an exterminationist? That to me is a great sign of fragility and not of strength.

[Nessie]

....Now the guy accuses me of not knowing how to gather evidence,

Revisionists are unable to gather evidence to produce a chronological, evidenced narrative leading to a conclusion, which is the basic job of any criminal or historical investigation.

when what he defends most here is extrapolating what is actually evidenced.

I defend the widely used method of gathering evidence, which is then chronologically pieced together to determine what is corroborated and be led by that evidence to a proven conclusion. Evidence, not opinion, determines what happened.

He cannot determine the amount of ashes in the mass graves but claims that so many died because there are records of transportation or because the area containing ashes is very large.

No one can determine a precise amount of ashes in the mass graves. That would require massive excavations, sieving and separating.

The corroborating evidence that so many died comes from

- transport records of mass arrivals, without corresponding mass departures
- witness evidence to mass killings and graves
- archaeological surveys that have found disturbed areas of ground containing cremated remains that of a volume the equivalent to multiple Olympic sized swimming pools, which makes them the largest mass grave sites ever found anywhere in history.
- the circumstantial evidence of the operation of AR, clearing ghettos and theft of property.

No revisionists can produce such a volume of corroborating evidence.

[TlsMS93]

....Now the guy accuses me of not knowing how to gather evidence,

Revisionists are unable to gather evidence to produce a chronological, evidenced narrative leading to a conclusion, which is the basic job of any criminal or historical investigation.

when what he defends most here is extrapolating what is actually evidenced.

I defend the widely used method of gathering evidence, which is then chronologically pieced together to determine what is corroborated and be led by that evidence to a proven conclusion. Evidence, not opinion, determines what happened.

He cannot determine the amount of ashes in the mass graves but claims that so many died because there are records of transportation or because the area containing ashes is very large.

No one can determine a precise amount of ashes in the mass graves. That would require massive excavations, sieving and separating.

The corroborating evidence that so many died comes from

- transport records of mass arrivals, without corresponding mass departures
- witness evidence to mass killings and graves
- archaeological surveys that have found disturbed areas of ground containing cremated remains that of a volume the equivalent to multiple Olympic sized swimming pools, which makes them the largest mass grave sites ever found anywhere in history.
- the circumstantial evidence of the operation of AR, clearing ghettos and theft of property.

No revisionists can produce such a volume of corroborating evidence.

No one can determine the amount of ashes in mass graves but at the same time explain how this would be possible. It is unbelievable. The only reason they don't explain it is because they didn't do it, the Jewish community lacks money or they will cling to religious concepts of not disturbing the dead?

Lack of evidence does not mean that there is no evidence, continue to ignore the elephant in the room called the USSR and believe that everything we know has already been published.

Witnesses can only speak about their own case, none were neutral and external observers, they only observed a few trees and not the entire forest.

The soil was disturbed for years by local residents looking for trinkets.

There is evidence of Western Jews in the occupied USSR but it is an exception for you.

[Nessie]

.....

No one can determine a precise amount of ashes in the mass graves. That would require massive excavations, sieving and separating.

The corroborating evidence that so many died comes from

- transport records of mass arrivals, without corresponding mass departures
- witness evidence to mass killings and graves
- archaeological surveys that have found disturbed areas of ground containing cremated remains that of a volume the equivalent to multiple Olympic sized swimming pools, which makes them the largest mass grave sites ever found anywhere in history.
- the circumstantial evidence of the operation of AR, clearing ghettos and theft of property.

No revisionists can produce such a volume of corroborating evidence.

No one can determine the amount of ashes in mass graves but at the same time explain how this would be possible. It is unbelievable. The only reason they don't explain it is because they didn't do it, the Jewish community lacks money or they will cling to religious concepts of not disturbing the dead?

No it is because of all the corroborating evidence proving mass graves that already exists. If revisionists do not accept that, there is no way they will accept the results of a mass excavation, that proves huge quantities of cremated remains.

Lack of evidence does not mean that there is no evidence, continue to ignore the elephant in the room called the USSR and believe that everything we know has already been published.

The lack of evidence of millions of Jews whom the Nazis had arrested 1939 to 1944, still alive in camps and ghettos, has got nothing to do with the Soviets and everything to do with the Nazis. That there is no evidence of that, is the real elephant in the room, as millions in camps and ghettos in 1944, would leave a lot of evidence.

Witnesses can only speak about their own case, none were neutral and external observers, they only observed a few trees and not the entire forest.

100% of those who worked at the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas speak to gassings. The largest single group of witnesses, were German SS.

The soil was disturbed for years by local residents looking for trinkets.

There is evidence of Western Jews in the occupied USSR but it is an exception for you.

There is evidence such as transports of German Jews to Riga in 1941, but come 1944 and nothing, it was Jew free.