Best Mainstream Pieces of Evidence

[ConfusedJew]

If you were being intellectually honest, what do you think that the strongest arguments and forms of evidence are in suggesting that the Holocaust might have happened?

Even if you don't find it persuasive, what do you think is the strongest, and conversely the weakest?

If I were evaluating the strongest aspects of the denier arguments, I would say that the forensic chemistry tests could be the most peruasive although it relies on very technical aspects of chemistry and sensitivity of testing methods that few people would truly understand.

Persuasive isn't the same thing as being grounded in truth though, so the ones that have caused me to "revise" my understanding of the Holocaust was how the T4 program was started by a father asking to euthanize his child and then slipped wildly out of control.

The weakest argument by far is the total dismissal of the tens of thousands of eyewitness testimonies from both survivors and perpetrators. And the denial that tens of thousands of survivors went on record too is basically undeniable but still somehow disregarded by this community. I see it as basically impossible that tens of thousands of people with personal experience with the Holocaust could have all aligned on many core details even if they conspired. How would they have gotten their stories straight?

[Wahrheitssucher]

…what do you think that the strongest arguments and forms of evidence are in suggesting that the Holocaust might have happened?

See my post here: viewtopic.php?p=15671#p15671

What ConfusedJew is repeatedly doing by reframing the discussion in this bogus way is either:
a.) extremely stupid
or
b.) deceitful.

[Stubble]

Strongest; missing persons

Weakest; witness statements

With 1) this point isn't especially persuasive because there has been such a lackluster effort to identify this nebulous cohort of 'missing persons'. Also, missing does not mean 'murdered by the nazis'.

With 2) this is the least persuasive because when examined the key testimony falls apart in front of your eyes.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…what do you think that the strongest arguments and forms of evidence are in suggesting that the Holocaust might have happened?

Strongest; missing persons

Weakest; witness statements

With 1) this point isn't especially persuasive because there has been such a lackluster effort to identify this nebulous cohort of 'missing persons'. Also, missing does not mean 'murdered by the nazis'.

With 2) this is the least persuasive because when examined the key testimony falls apart in front of your eyes.

You’ve just helped him deceitfully reframe the discussion.

Do you deny Jews were targeted with anti-jewish ‘race’ laws during WW2?
Do you deny Jews were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps?
Do you deny many tens of thousands of jews died as a result of hardship and disease in the camps.
Do you deny that as part of their ‘final solution of the jewish question’ the Third Reich hierarchy wanted to make Europe ‘judenrein’?
Etc., etc.
All of that is part of the ‘jewish holocaust’ narrative.

If you do not deny all that, why are you permitting CJ to present you as if you do, and as if all revisionists are ‘deniers’ of the above?

[Stubble]

…what do you think that the strongest arguments and forms of evidence are in suggesting that the Holocaust might have happened?

Strongest; missing persons

Weakest; witness statements

With 1) this point isn't especially persuasive because there has been such a lackluster effort to identify this nebulous cohort of 'missing persons'. Also, missing does not mean 'murdered by the nazis'.

With 2) this is the least persuasive because when examined the key testimony falls apart in front of your eyes.

You’ve helped him reframe the discussion.
Do you deny Jews were targeted with anti-jewish ‘race’ laws during WW2?
Do you deny Jews were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps?
Do you deny many tens of thousands of jews died as a result of hardship and disease in the camps.
Do you deny that as part of their ‘final solution of the jewish question’ the Third Reich hierarchy wanted to make Europe ‘judenrein’?
Etc.
All of that is part of the ‘jewish holocaust’ narrative.

If you do not deny all that, why are you permitting CJ to present you and all revisionists as ‘deniers’ of the above?

Absolutely fair assessment. Again part of the problem here is that 'the narrative' like a sacrament, is meant to be taken whole, no part, no matter how demonstrably false, cut out. Only 'the version'.

This goes back to 'spinning the squirrel'. The technique is to seem reasonable while simultaneously promoting one version of events regardless of how ludicrous it is.

My apologies for the misstep.

[Nessie]

Strongest; missing persons

Weakest; witness statements

With 1) this point isn't especially persuasive because there has been such a lackluster effort to identify this nebulous cohort of 'missing persons'. Also, missing does not mean 'murdered by the nazis'.

I agree, the strongest evidence is the huge drop in the population of Jews arrested by the Nazis. The lackluster effort to find Jews, is by so-called revisionists. Historians have dedicated a huge amount of time gathering evidence to trace the movement of Jews, after they were arrested. Much of it comes from Nazi sources, but others corroborate. For example, Nazi and Polish documents recording transports to TII and the lack of any corresponding documents of mass transports back out of the camp. That means hundreds of thousands went "missing" inside that camp. That process is repeated all over Eastern Europe, from the people who went missing in the forest near Maly Trostenets, at Babi Yar, Rumbula, Ponary, to the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas. Jews disappear from the documentary trail, at specific places and times. After the war, a huge effort has been made by various archives, national and international, to document who survived and who did not.

Compare that to so-called revisionists attempts to trace Jews and frankly, the so-called revisionist efforts are pathetic. Only one serious effort has been made, by Thomas Kues, to find missing "gassed" Jews and he failed and has not been heard from since. The so-called revisionists cannot explain why all the ghettos had closed by the autumn of 1944, or why A-B's population was lower in 1944, than it had been in 1943. Indeed, many make no effort at all, claiming it is not needed!

With 2) this is the least persuasive because when examined the key testimony falls apart in front of your eyes.

The eyewitness evidence is far stronger than you suggest. That Nazi and Jew agree certain places were used for gassings, is in itself, strong corroboration. That 100% of the eyewitnesses agree and zero can be found who state those places were used for another purpose, further strengthens the claims. Historians and lawyers have assessed witnesses, taking into account studies of how well people remember and recall events, and what is and what is not hearsay, rumour, or eyewitness evidence. When only the eyewitnesses are used, they are consistent in the main events, and vary, as to be expected, in the detail.

So-called revisionists fail to take into account the huge volume of studies of witnesses, memory and recall. They regularly confuse eyewitness evidence with hearsay. Minor inconsistencies are made out to be major. When they struggle to doubt the more matter of fact Nazi eyewitness evidence, they have to resort to allegations of torture, with no evidence of that happening. It does seem to bother them, that their supposed analysis of the eyewitnesses, results in no witnesses at all, despite millions of people having been to the places where mass murders took place. We are expected to believe that all of those eyewitnesses lied, perfectly, with none ever blowing the hoax and admitting to lying and stating what really happened.

[Keen]

Here is the best peice of evidence for the fraudulently alleged mass murder of 2.145 million jews at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II (36% of the holohoax):

[Keen]

We are expected to believe that all of those eyewitnesses lied, perfectly, with none ever blowing the hoax and admitting to lying and stating what really happened.

Says the reality denier who denies this fact:

It has been PROVEN that every single "eyewitness" to mass murder at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II was lying.

EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

[Keen]

I see it as basically impossible that tens of thousands of people with personal experience with the Holocaust could have all aligned on many core details even if they conspired. How would they have gotten their stories straight?

Yawn. Just another lame attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Questions like these from low IQ reality deniers like Confused jew are nothing less than tacit admissions that the fraudulently alleged mass murder of jews in so-called "pure extermination centers" have been proven to be lies.

[Keen]

What ConfusedJew is repeatedly doing by reframing the discussion in this bogus way is either:
a.) extremely stupid
or
b.) deceitful.

Actually, it's both.

But what do you expect from someone with such a low IQ?

[AreYouSirius]

If you were being intellectually honest, what do you think that the strongest arguments and forms of evidence are in suggesting that the Holocaust might have happened?

I spent my childhood being indoctrinated about the Holocaust by Hollywood studios and the mainstream corporate media. I sat in churches, American public schools, and was brought on field trips to the Holocaust Museum — education and field trip opportunities were financed by my government.

I was traumatized by large gallery displays of graphic death & starvation photos that were purposefully misattributed to German atrocities, when they were actually enacted by Allied forces.

I didn’t come to this forum to parrot the talking points drilled into me by Jewish and Zionist interests. I visit this forum to study the work of forensic analysts and historic researchers that are uncovering the unvarnished truth.

I’m not doing your homework for you. If you have a compelling argument, share it.

You are bonded to the mythos surrounding this very exaggerated historic atrocity— maybe you’re trauma-bonded to it.

But I’m not obligated to strengthen your testimony and your resolve regarding this event.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I see it as basically impossible that tens of thousands of people with personal experience with the Holocaust could have all aligned on many core details even if they conspired. How would they have gotten their stories straight?

Yawn. Just another lame attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Questions like these from low IQ reality deniers like Confused jew are nothing less than tacit admissions that the fraudulently alleged mass murder of jews in so-called "pure extermination centers" have been proven to be lies.

What I think you’ve also done — like Stubble did — is miss that ConfusedJew is referring to eye-witnesses to THINGS THAT ARE NOT CONTESTED.
Thus he’s tricked you into unwittingly posing as a denier of obvious and uncontested holocaust realities.

This is his stubbornly-stupid or deceitful ploy:
he refers to “…tens of thousands of people with personal experience with the Holocaust [who] have all aligned on many core details…” AS IF revisionists are denying them or doubting them. He does this by NEVER specifying which eye-witnessed details he is referring to.

In one post he once revealed his own ignorance when he used this ploy to refer to the alleged homicidal mass gassings of millions.

On that occasion when asked to name some of the claimed “… tens of thousands of people with personal experience…” of these alleged mass-gassings, he didn’t respond with the name of a single eye-witness.

He’s playing with you guys.

[Keen]

He’s playing with you guys.

No he's not.

Not me anyway.

[Nessie]

... I visit this forum to study the work of forensic analysts and historic researchers that are uncovering the unvarnished truth.

What forensic analysts, or historic researchers are you referring to?

[HansHill]

If you were being intellectually honest, what do you think that the strongest arguments and forms of evidence are in suggesting that the Holocaust might have happened?

Even if you don't find it persuasive, what do you think is the strongest, and conversely the weakest?

If I were evaluating the strongest aspects of the denier arguments, I would say that the forensic chemistry tests could be the most peruasive although it relies on very technical aspects of chemistry and sensitivity of testing methods that few people would truly understand.

Persuasive isn't the same thing as being grounded in truth though, so the ones that have caused me to "revise" my understanding of the Holocaust was how the T4 program was started by a father asking to euthanize his child and then slipped wildly out of control.

The weakest argument by far is the total dismissal of the tens of thousands of eyewitness testimonies from both survivors and perpetrators. And the denial that tens of thousands of survivors went on record too is basically undeniable but still somehow disregarded by this community. I see it as basically impossible that tens of thousands of people with personal experience with the Holocaust could have all aligned on many core details even if they conspired. How would they have gotten their stories straight?

I’ll bite but a counter-question first:

Does your question imply that there is pro-Holocaust evidence that is stronger than what was presented at Nuremberg?

My reading of your question leads me to think this is what you are suggesting. Otherwise the question would be redundant.

If that inference is valid which i think it must be, then my question to you is; what stronger evidence has emerged post Nuremberg and why was it omitted / neglected / overlooked?