Comments on other threads.

[Keen]

The Holocaust has been proven by solid tangible evidence.

Liar.

BELZEC, CHELMNO, PONARY, SOBIBOR and TREBLINKA II

Are the remains of 2.145 million Jews really buried in the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass graves?

(The labeling of asking this simple question as “hate / antisemitic” is your first clue that they do not want you to know what the answer is.)

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational question: Is it reasonable to doubt the veracity of the orthodox history that has fraudulently been “proven” by so-called “Holocaust archaelogists” - Yes. - or - No. - ??

...

A - $100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 100 alleged graves / cremation pits in question that is proven - with the same standard of proof applied in U. S. civil courts - to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of - at least 2 people. (That is less than one tenth of one one thousandth of one percent of the alleged mass murder.)

...

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.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Eye of Zyclone]

Again, history is not revised by argument. Zundel and his lawyer, had some successes with the arguments they put forward during the trial, but at no point did they produce any evidence to revise the history and prove a new narrative.

Fortunately, propaganda stories are not regarded as true unless replaced with an alternative narrative. Propaganda stories are regarded as demonizing lies unless proven true by solid tangible evidence, and the Holocaust was admittedly never proven true by solid tangible evidence (hence the whole "top secrecy and post facto destruction of evidence" narrative concoted and repeated ad nauseam by Holohoax conspiracy theorists). For instance, today's historians regard as untrue the atrocity story of Belgian kids whose hands had been cut off by German soldiers during WW1 because the Allies failed to find a single Belgian kid with missing hands after WW1. No alternative narrative needed. Just a big propaganda lie made up to demonize the enemy and fuel the Allied war effort.

The Holocaust has been proven by solid tangible evidence. It would be easy to fake a story about children having their hands cut off, and easy to evidence it did not happen, by not finding any with missing hands. It is impossible to fake something the size of the Holocaust and not find evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

No, it hasn't and you know it.

With so many children working in factories back then, finding some children with a missing hand after WW1 would have been quite easy. But it still wouldn't have proved that their missing hands had been cut off by German soldiers during the war anyway.

Not finding evidence of millions of Jews alive and liberated in 1945 was a breeze. The victors just needed to assert that six million Jews had gone missing. Was more than enough to make it become a "fact of common knowledge" (sic) because victors never lie, do they?

The same happened with the Irving trial, for example, Vrba's concession he had mixed hearsay with what he saw. Despite all of Irving's years of study and research, he could not produce an eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas, who stated they had a purpose other than gassings. That would have been a genuine revision.

No, that would have proved nothing. Testimonies are just series of words devoid of any intrinsic probative value.

Would say that, if a witness who worked inside an AR camp, said it was a transit camp and it never had a gas chamber?

Of course, I would. Ditto for the millions of witnesses who talked about the Loch Ness monster, bigfoots, ghosts, aliens, trolls, chupacabras, angels, Marian apparitions, Kuwaiti babies removed from incubators, Jewish-fat Nazi soap, and the gas chambers of WW1.

And you, would you claim that Jews ritually murdered Christian kids to steal their blood ("blood libel") only because some Jews confessed it in courts?

Moreover all the workers who operated the KL crematories were camp inmates, most of them Jewish, that is, super biased Germanophobes who hated the Nazis beyond anything. Of course the most unreliable source of information (and the most prolific source of disinformation) in the world.

The majority of the eyewitnesses to the gassings, were German and Ukrainian SS. The majority of the corroborating evidence is from Nazi sources.

For understandable sanitary reasons, there were no Germans inside the Auschwitz Kremas during the war, when those facilities were full of contagious corpses.

And most of the former camp guards who falsely confessed the use of homicidal gas chambers at postwar show trials got ridiculously light prison sentences (some Jews bitterly complained about it a few years ago) as a reward for helping the victors of WW2 corroborate their propaganda lies with bogus 'evidence' like that produced at witch trials for centuries.

[Nessie]

Fortunately, propaganda stories are not regarded as true unless replaced with an alternative narrative. Propaganda stories are regarded as demonizing lies unless proven true by solid tangible evidence, and the Holocaust was admittedly never proven true by solid tangible evidence (hence the whole "top secrecy and post facto destruction of evidence" narrative concoted and repeated ad nauseam by Holohoax conspiracy theorists). For instance, today's historians regard as untrue the atrocity story of Belgian kids whose hands had been cut off by German soldiers during WW1 because the Allies failed to find a single Belgian kid with missing hands after WW1. No alternative narrative needed. Just a big propaganda lie made up to demonize the enemy and fuel the Allied war effort.

The Holocaust has been proven by solid tangible evidence. It would be easy to fake a story about children having their hands cut off, and easy to evidence it did not happen, by not finding any with missing hands. It is impossible to fake something the size of the Holocaust and not find evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

No, it hasn't and you know it.

With so many children working in factories back then, finding some children with a missing hand after WW1 would have been quite easy. But it still wouldn't have proved that their missing hands had been cut off by German soldiers during the war anyway.

How about hoaxing 6 million children, from all across Europe, having had their hands cut off, how easy would that be? How easy would it be to evidence it had not happened?

Not finding evidence of millions of Jews alive and liberated in 1945 was a breeze. The victors just needed to assert that six million Jews had gone missing. Was more than enough to make it become a "fact of common knowledge" (sic) because victors never lie, do they?

You forget about France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, the Balkan countries, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States. They all admit to assisting the Nazis. The majority of Jews killed were their citizens. Why would they hoax that?

No, that would have proved nothing. Testimonies are just series of words devoid of any intrinsic probative value.

Would you say that, if a witness who worked inside an AR camp, said it was a transit camp and it never had a gas chamber?

Of course, I would. Ditto for the millions of witnesses who talked about the Loch Ness monster, bigfoots, ghosts, aliens, trolls, chupacabras, angels, Marian apparitions, Kuwaiti babies removed from incubators, Jewish-fat Nazi soap, and the gas chambers of WW1.

If the SS camp staff from TII, all said the Jewish prisoners were lying and the camp was a transit camp, you would dismiss that? I say you are lying.

And you, would you claim that Jews ritually murdered Christian kids to steal their blood ("blood libel") only because some Jews confessed it in courts?

No. I would want corroborating evidence from a source independent of them. Just as the Jews from the camps are corroborated by the SS staff, documents, physical remains and circumstantial evidence.

Moreover all the workers who operated the KL crematories were camp inmates, most of them Jewish, that is, super biased Germanophobes who hated the Nazis beyond anything. Of course the most unreliable source of information (and the most prolific source of disinformation) in the world.

The majority of the eyewitnesses to the gassings, were German and Ukrainian SS. The majority of the corroborating evidence is from Nazi sources.

For understandable sanitary reasons, there were no Germans inside the Auschwitz Kremas during the war, when those facilities were full of contagious corpses.

Please prove that claim.

And most of the former camp guards who falsely confessed the use of homicidal gas chambers at postwar show trials got ridiculously light prison sentences (some Jews bitterly complained about it a few years ago) as a reward for helping the victors of WW2 corroborate their propaganda lies with bogus 'evidence' like that produced at witch trials for centuries.

You are now ridiculously claiming that both severe and light sentences are an incentive to confess to a crime they did not commit. It is clear you are just making up a story to suit your beliefs.

[Eye of Zyclone]

The Holocaust has been proven by solid tangible evidence. It would be easy to fake a story about children having their hands cut off, and easy to evidence it did not happen, by not finding any with missing hands. It is impossible to fake something the size of the Holocaust and not find evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

No, it hasn't and you know it.

With so many children working in factories back then, finding some children with a missing hand after WW1 would have been quite easy. But it still wouldn't have proved that their missing hands had been cut off by German soldiers during the war anyway.

How about hoaxing 6 million children, from all across Europe, having had their hands cut off, how easy would that be? How easy would it be to evidence it had not happened?

Evidence something did NOT happen is about proving a negative, a well-known logical fallacy. If the victors of WW1 had stuck to a lie of six million children having had their hands cut off by the Germans during the war by bringing bogus corroborating 'evidence' such as false testimonies by alleged witnesses and victims, false confessions by alleged perpetrators and pictures of children with missing hands, history books would portray that fictive atrocity as a proven fact in the historiography of the First World War. The post-WW1 downfall of the victors' propaganda lies was admittedly the reason why the victors of WW2 held Soviet-style show trials like the Nuremberg judicial farce after WW2.

Not finding evidence of millions of Jews alive and liberated in 1945 was a breeze. The victors just needed to assert that six million Jews had gone missing. Was more than enough to make it become a "fact of common knowledge" (sic) because victors never lie, do they?

You forget about France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, the Balkan countries, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States. They all admit to assisting the Nazis. The majority of Jews killed were their citizens. Why would they hoax that?

Half of the countries you mentioned fell in Soviet hands during WW2 and became Soviet dominions during the following 5 decades. And the other countries had no way to know what had happened to "their" deported Jews during WW2 anyway. How could they have known what had happened to the Jews who decided to go to Jew-occupied Palestine, the United States, British countries or elsewhere after WW2 instead of returning to countries that had handed them over to the Nazis during the war? Moreover many Jews were not "their citizens" as you claim. For instance, around 90% of the Jews who were in Belgium in 1938 were recent immigrants from antisemitic countries like Germany and Poland and they did not have Belgian citizenship. They had no strong ties to Belgium and so no good reasons to resettle in Belgium rather than in Palestine or the United States after WW2. The situation was very similar in all the countries of Western Europe.

Would you say that, if a witness who worked inside an AR camp, said it was a transit camp and it never had a gas chamber?

Of course, I would. Ditto for the millions of witnesses who talked about the Loch Ness monster, bigfoots, ghosts, aliens, trolls, chupacabras, angels, Marian apparitions, Kuwaiti babies removed from incubators, Jewish-fat Nazi soap, and the gas chambers of WW1.

If the SS camp staff from TII, all said the Jewish prisoners were lying and the camp was a transit camp, you would dismiss that? I say you are lying.

Say what you want to say. I don't care.

Again. Yes, I would dismiss that.

And you, would you claim that Jews ritually murdered Christian kids to steal their blood ("blood libel") only because some Jews confessed it in courts?

No. I would want corroborating evidence from a source independent of them. Just as the Jews from the camps are corroborated by the SS staff, documents, physical remains and circumstantial evidence.

A source independent from them like court testimonies, forensic reports and circumstancial evidence?

Here it is :


https://i.postimg.cc/NspJZ6yp/Blood-Libel-Trials.jpg

You're welcome.

The majority of the eyewitnesses to the gassings, were German and Ukrainian SS. The majority of the corroborating evidence is from Nazi sources.

For understandable sanitary reasons, there were no Germans inside the Auschwitz Kremas during the war, when those facilities were full of contagious corpses.

Please prove that claim.

A reverse burden of proof again. Prove some Nazis (camp guards) worked inside the Auschwitz crematoria during WW2. What was (were) his (their) name(s)?

And most of the former camp guards who falsely confessed the use of homicidal gas chambers at postwar show trials got ridiculously light prison sentences (some Jews bitterly complained about it a few years ago) as a reward for helping the victors of WW2 corroborate their propaganda lies with bogus 'evidence' like that produced at witch trials for centuries.

You are now ridiculously claiming that both severe and light sentences are an incentive to confess to a crime they did not commit. It is clear you are just making up a story to suit your beliefs.

No, I didn't say that. The risk of a heavy sentence and the promise of a light sentence are not mutually exclusive things. Both things are even the essence of what such a deal is all about. Not ridiculous. Such deals take place every day in all countries of the world.

[Nessie]

No, it hasn't and you know it.

With so many children working in factories back then, finding some children with a missing hand after WW1 would have been quite easy. But it still wouldn't have proved that their missing hands had been cut off by German soldiers during the war anyway.

How about hoaxing 6 million children, from all across Europe, having had their hands cut off, how easy would that be? How easy would it be to evidence it had not happened?

Evidence something did NOT happen is about proving a negative, a well-known logical fallacy.

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, for example, mass gassings at Dachau. There is no evidence mass gassings took place, which proves there were no such gassings. As an example, say there was an allegation the British were gassing German internees on the Isle of Man. If German internees were interviewed and said they knew nothing about that and none of them had gone missing, and the place where the gassings were supposed to have happened was examined and it was a shower and documents accounted for all the internees, that would prove the claim was wrong. You clearly do not understand evidencing, or fallacies.

If the victors of WW1 had stuck to a lie of six million children having had their hands cut off by the Germans during the war by bringing bogus corroborating 'evidence' such as false testimonies by alleged witnesses and victims, false confessions by alleged perpetrators and pictures of children with missing hands, history books would portray that fictive atrocity as a proven fact in the historiography of the First World War. The post-WW1 downfall of the victors' propaganda lies was admittedly the reason why the victors of WW2 held Soviet-style show trials like the Nuremberg judicial farce after WW2.

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.

Not finding evidence of millions of Jews alive and liberated in 1945 was a breeze. The victors just needed to assert that six million Jews had gone missing. Was more than enough to make it become a "fact of common knowledge" (sic) because victors never lie, do they?

You forget about France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, the Balkan countries, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States. They all admit to assisting the Nazis. The majority of Jews killed were their citizens. Why would they hoax that?

Half of the countries you mentioned fell in Soviet hands during WW2 and became Soviet dominions during the following 5 decades. And the other countries had no way to know what had happened to "their" deported Jews during WW2 anyway. How could they have known what had happened to the Jews who decided to go to Jew-occupied Palestine, the United States, British countries or elsewhere after WW2 instead of returning to countries that had handed them over to the Nazis during the war? Moreover many Jews were not "their citizens" as you claim. For instance, around 90% of the Jews who were in Belgium in 1938 were recent immigrants from antisemitic countries like Germany and Poland and they did not have Belgian citizenship. They had no strong ties to Belgium and so no good reasons to resettle in Belgium rather than in Palestine or the United States after WW2. The situation was very similar in all the countries of Western Europe.

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.

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.

Of course, I would. Ditto for the millions of witnesses who talked about the Loch Ness monster, bigfoots, ghosts, aliens, trolls, chupacabras, angels, Marian apparitions, Kuwaiti babies removed from incubators, Jewish-fat Nazi soap, and the gas chambers of WW1.

If the SS camp staff from TII, all said the Jewish prisoners were lying and the camp was a transit camp, you would dismiss that? I say you are lying.

Say what you want to say. I don't care.

Again. Yes, I would dismiss that.

I do not believe you. Your lies and inventions are becoming even more ridiculous.

And you, would you claim that Jews ritually murdered Christian kids to steal their blood ("blood libel") only because some Jews confessed it in courts?

No. I would want corroborating evidence from a source independent of them. Just as the Jews from the camps are corroborated by the SS staff, documents, physical remains and circumstantial evidence.

A source independent from them like court testimonies, forensic reports and circumstancial evidence?

Here it is :


https://i.postimg.cc/NspJZ6yp/Blood-Libel-Trials.jpg

You're welcome.

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

For understandable sanitary reasons, there were no Germans inside the Auschwitz Kremas during the war, when those facilities were full of contagious corpses.

Please prove that claim.

A reverse burden of proof again. Prove some Nazis (camp guards) worked inside the Auschwitz crematoria during WW2. What was (were) his (their) name(s)?

It is your claim that no German worked inside the Kremas. Prove it. If you understood evidencing, you would know how to. For example, an order from Hoess that no SS were to enter the Kremas, or a statement from one of the SS, or a Jewish prisoner that only Jews worked inside the buildings. If you cannot find any such evidence, just admit that and that you made up your claim.

And most of the former camp guards who falsely confessed the use of homicidal gas chambers at postwar show trials got ridiculously light prison sentences (some Jews bitterly complained about it a few years ago) as a reward for helping the victors of WW2 corroborate their propaganda lies with bogus 'evidence' like that produced at witch trials for centuries.

You are now ridiculously claiming that both severe and light sentences are an incentive to confess to a crime they did not commit. It is clear you are just making up a story to suit your beliefs.

No, I didn't say that. The risk of a heavy sentence and the promise of a light sentence are not mutually exclusive things. Both things are even the essence of what such a deal is all about. Not ridiculous. Such deals take place every day in all countries of the world.

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!