Best Mainstream Pieces of Evidence

[Nessie]

Evidence has strengths and weaknesses. Eyewitnesses are, due to memory and recall issues, often unreliable, so they are weak when it comes to details. But they provide the strongest narrative, chronological evidence. Forensic evidence is generally very reliable, but it is a snapshot that provides little narrative. Photographs are the same. Circumstantial evidence can be very weak, or very strong.

At Nuremberg (though the majority of Holocaust related trials came later, or they were not at Nuremberg) the circumstantial evidence was very strong. Numerous reports had been coming from Nazi occupied Europe, thought out the war, of mass arrests, seizure of property, transportation and imprisonment of Jews. That is also evidence of opportunity, as it gave the Nazis the opportunity to kill. From 1941, there was a steady stream of reports of mass murder, which by 1944, was in the millions. In 1945, the Allies, east and west, liberated only a few hundred thousand Jews and many countries reported that few returned home. When questioned, Nazis either admitted to mass killings, denied knowledge of or responsibility for mass killings or they claimed they believed Jews were being resettled, but they could not give any details about where and when.

If someone declares open hostility to another, and they then kidnap that person and that person disappears, that is circumstantial evidence of murder. When that someone admits to murder, a witness comes forward to say they saw the murder, and some human remains are found, that is enough corroborating evidence to convict. Except, when it comes to Jews being murdered by Nazis, for some reason, according to so-called revisionists.

[Keen]

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.

Well said AreYouSirius, especially this: "I’m not doing your homework for you."

But with that said, I happen to be doing the homework for the low IQ reality deniers who are asking: "Where did they go"?

I am searching for the 250,000 jews who are alleged to have been resettled in Sobibor, and have found 11 of the 250,000 so far:
( viewtopic.php?p=15778#p15778 )

Yes, I know I'm doing their homework for them, but what suprises me is what little interest they are showing in what I have found so far. One would think that they would be jumping in with both feet trying to help find the jews that they themselves claim disappeared there. In fact, they seem to have no interst at all in finding them. How odd, to be constantly asking the question "where did they go"? and then not be interested in the answer. They truly are reality deniers.

[Keen]

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?

Well first off Confused jew, you wouldn't know intellectual honesty if it hit you in the face. What a funny question comming from someone who is pathologically dishonest.

But anyway, let's break your question down to individual "holocausts within the holocaust" to make things simpler, and rephrase the question to: What is the strongest evidence suggesting that the Sobibor holocaust actually happened as alleged in orthodox historiography?

I say the strongest evidence uncoverd so far suggesting that the Sobibor holocaust actually happened as alleged is this:



Do you have anything that you think is stronger? If so, please post it here: viewtopic.php?t=155

Thanks.

[Keen]

If someone declares open hostility to another, and they then kidnap that person and that person disappears, that is circumstantial evidence of murder. When that someone admits to murder, a witness comes forward to say they saw the murder, and some human remains are found, that is enough corroborating evidence to convict. Except, when it comes to Jews being murdered by Nazis, for some reason, according to so-called revisionists.

More incredible dishonesty from Sergay.

Let's take Sobibor as an example. If someone is alleged to have killed 250,000 people and then buried them in their back yard, and they admit to killing 250,000 and then burying them in their back yard, and "witnesses" come forward and say that they saw the individual murder and bury 250,000 people in that persons back yard; but only 11 bodies were ever located in that persons back yard, that person would not be convicted of murdering 250,000 people - only 11. And all the "evidence" that was presented for the murder of 250,000 rather than 11 would be considered fraudulent and the "eyewitnesses" would be convicted for perjury and all the police and prosecuters would be fired for telling all the lies in trying to sell the lie that the person killed 249,989 more people than he actually did.

Evidence of "some" human remains (say for example 11 people) does not equate to evidence for 250,000 people.

It's magical thinking to believe otherwise.

[ConfusedJew]

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?

Different people weigh different pieces and types of information differently. My question was aspect about your subjective opinion here.

Two people can look at the same exact set of facts and interpret them totally differently. I love seeing how different people see the world which is why I am here. I talk to people with all kinds of different religious opinions and beliefs too.

As far as I know, every judge and jury that has looked at the evidence presented to them in court have ruled that the Holocaust is real but that's not to say that they are without their own biases. The best you can do is strive to be objective in order to reduce biases. Some are better at that than others.