Comments on other threads.

[Keen]

I have Keen on ignore due

to the fact that you are a cornered rat



that lacks the intelligence, courage, integrity and character to even attempt to defend your unsubstantiated allegations in a debate.

[Keen]

Fellas? Would we support and encourage Nessie in writing this essay?

Why not just a rebuttable presumption?

It would save the agony of having to read his sophomoric drivel, which would be filled with unsubstantiated allegations ad nauseam.

[Archie]

Why don't you write a followup essay about this, it would be fascinating. I'm sure Archie would sticky it front and center on the forum.

I'll pin to this subforum. That seems like the right amount of attention. I wouldn't want to be accused of "straw-manning" by promoting Nessie's embarrassing theories too enthusiastically.

[Nessie]

Why don't you write a followup essay about this, it would be fascinating. I'm sure Archie would sticky it front and center on the forum.

Your essay can address for example:

- The factors that determine the formation of Prussian Blue
- The concentrations and exposure times required to ensure PB formation at the Kremas
- Analyses of where Prussian Blue has been documented in other locations (eg the fumigation chambers, Meussen's soil samples, the Bavarian churches etc)
- The longevity of Prussian Blue once formed

(A lot of the heavy lifting has been done for you here, and you will get most if not all of your information from Germar Rudolf)

Exactly, if exposure was similar to that used for delousing, then it would be expected that PB forms. The lower levels used for gassings, that formation is less likely, but, with a gas chamber in use for two years, it MAY have started to form in small patches. PB does not appear overnight, in obvious blue, it forms gradually.

You can then continue and explain:

- Why Richard Green, Robert Jan Van Pelt and Josef Bailer were wrong to assert why Prussian Blue is categorically not able to form in the Kremas
- Why Markiewicz was wrong to omit it from his analysis

I am not saying they were wrong. All of the discussion about PB amongst so-called revisionists is hypothetical, since it ignores the evidence of usage. The whole debate is about possibilities. Either, PB could not form (suggested by Green etc), or slight traces may have appeared in some of the chambers (my suggestion), or they should have had obvious traces (the so-called revisionist position). PB formation is not instantaneous, so my suggestion covers the part where it is just becoming apparent, in the early stages of formation. That may not have happened until the very end of the use of the chambers, since the exposure was over shorter times and at lower levels than in the delousing chambers. In other words, PB would show signs of forming in delousing situations, sooner, than in gassings.

- What happened to those pesky blue bricks that we no longer see them

The Nazis removed them, as you can see at the ruins of Kremas IV and V and the two farm houses, or they are buried in the ruins of Kremas II or III. Or, they are behind the earth bank at Krema I. Or, the PB never got any further than the plaster and it never progressed into the bricks.

Fellas? Would we support and encourage Nessie in writing this essay?

It does not need an essay and I am not going to provide one. You want to bog the debate down in hypotheticals, so you can ignore your inability to evidence usage. This is why I am quarantined, as I will not play your game by your rules. I will not discuss your incredulity based on your inability to work out why there is no obvious PB at the gas chambers, when there is at the delousing chambers.

What you cannot cope with, is that evidence of usage is the Kremas were used for homicidal gassings. That means, logically and evidentially, in homicidal gassings, PB either does not form, or it is a barely noticeably level of formation and it is not like the delousing chambers. Why that is, is subject to some uncertainty and that is not evidence to prove there cannot have been homicidal gassings.

[Keen]

- What happened to those pesky blue bricks that we no longer see them

The Nazis removed them

Ah yes, the "magically disappearing bricks" theory.

Where have I heard something like that before?

[Keen]

Keen has you by the balls Nessie!

nessie doesn't have any balls.

[Keen]

Fellas? Would we support and encourage Nessie in writing this essay?

I am not going to provide one.

[Nessie]

Archie lives in a world where you can argue what happened in history;

viewtopic.php?p=26676#p26676

If you've got great arguments, just go ahead and make them.

Bombsaway and pretty much everyone else knows that history is evidenced;

There is an evidentiary record to be reckoned with here, which you have not done.

The Holocaust deniers here want to be called revisionists, but they do not earn that title when they argue, rather evidence, a revised history.

[Keen]

Archie lives in a world where you can argue what happened in history;

viewtopic.php?p=26676#p26676

If you've got great arguments, just go ahead and make them.

Bombsaway and pretty much everyone else knows that history is evidenced;

There is an evidentiary record to be reckoned with here, which you have not done.

The Holocaust deniers here want to be called revisionists, but they do not earn that title when they argue, rather evidence, a revised history.

The so-called "evidence" that you refer to is nothing but unsubstantiated allegations with no evidentiary value.

In order for evidence to be meaningful, it has to be substantiated, not "corroborated."

Unsubstantiated "evidence" doesn't prove a thing.

As we all know, with 100% certainty:

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.

[Nessie]

Archie suggests the strongest argument historians can make over the Red Cross visit to Auschwitz;

viewtopic.php?p=26698#p26698

A More Defensible Anti-Revisionist Argument

Sometimes I wonder who these guys are hoping to persuade with these tortured and unnecessary arguments. I really think they lose people by double-down on ridiculous things way too often. If I were on the other side, this is how I would try to deal with this document. I would say the ICRC did not have access to Auschwitz II and were therefore were unable to confirm the gassings there. I'd say that this letter reflects the opinion of an author who was apparently not convinced of the large scale gassings of Jews but that this person was mistaken and working with incomplete information. I would mention the "no further exterminations" point but I would not oversell it.

That is how I conclude the visit went. McClelland cannot confirm or deny mass murder operations, due to the limited scope of his investigation. He can confirm the rumours of mass murders and he is accepting they have happened, but they have now stopped, which, in retrospect, is found to be the case.

The Nazis passed up the perfect opportunity to authoritatively refute allegations of mass murder, by letting McClelland have access to the Birkenau Kremas and to speak to staff and prisoners there. It is reasonable to conclude, when someone is being obstructive by hiding evidence, or otherwise preventing access to it, that their conduct is criminal.

[Keen]

It is reasonable to conclude, when someone is being obstructive by hiding evidence, or otherwise preventing access to it, that their conduct is criminal.

You mean like, when the jews refuse to allow real excavations of areas that they insinuate "may" contain massive quantities of jewish remains - citing "jewish law" preventing it?

nessie:

I cannot physically show you mass graves. Geophysics scientifically and conclusively proves that there are pits and that they exist. But it does not prove that those pits contain human remains.

CSC:

Without intrusive activity, it is not possible to conclusively determine the nature of these pits.

[Nessie]

Keen is the main denier who pretends there is a lack of evidence of mass graves. Others also like to pretend;

viewtopic.php?p=26713#p26713

Pointing out that these enormous body counts, if real, would have resulted in mass graves and that these mass graves have never been demonstrated is not a "tangential" objection.

https://www.dhi.waw.pl/en/news/detail/i ... ss-graves/

"The new website aims to promote research and education on forgotten sites of Nazi crimes.

The German Historical Institute Warsaw has published an interactive map showing the locations of Holocaust mass graves within Polish territory occupied by Germany during the Second World War (the former General Government). The website is the result of three years of interdisciplinary research and is aimed at both specialists and the general public."

Mass graves keep on being found, going back to 1945;

https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/thi ... 945-2.html

"November 12, 1945, Mass Grave of Murdered Jews Discovered near Iwje, Poland"

https://news.sky.com/story/more-than-1- ... d-11726739

"More than 1,200 Jewish Holocaust victims, whose remains were discovered earlier this year after builders stumbled across a Nazi-era mass grave, have been buried in Belarus.
The remains were uncovered by chance in January as builders were laying the foundations for a housing development in Brest."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62161018

"A mass grave containing 17.5 tonnes of human ashes has been unearthed in northern Poland, close to the former Nazi concentration camp of Soldau.
Tomasz Jankowski from Poland's national remembrance institute said the grave contained at least 8,000 victims.
The bodies are thought to have been dug up and burned in a Nazi operation to hide traces of their murders.
The Nazis murdered Jews, political opponents and members of the Polish elite at Soldau."



"

[Keen]

Keen is the main denier who pretends there is a lack of evidence of mass graves.

The question isn't about "evidence" per se, it's about evidence that has legitimate evidentiary value. (Evidentiary value is the weight, credibility, and usefulness of a document, object, or statement in proving a fact or providing legal and historical proof.)

The so-called "evidence" that the mentally ill HC cult members repeatedly vomit up, is not clear, convincing or credible, and therefore has zero evidentiary value.

As well, it's the evidence that is NOT presented that is the most telling. As anyone with half a brain knows:

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.

That is why nessie has no answer to this:

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 legitimate adjudicable 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.

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

And that is why the cornered rat cravenly runs away from debate.

The latest photo of nessie:

[Keen]

Keen is the main denier who pretends there is a lack of evidence of mass graves.

“HUGE MASS GRAVES” are easily identifiable physical entities.

I refuse to believe in the existence of any physical entity that I am not allowed to see.

If you want me to believe, then simply:

Show me that which you allege I deny.

...

A - $100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass 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.)

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

What are you waiting for nessie?

What are you so afraid of?

[Nessie]

Callafangers discusses the Nazi motive to kill Jews;

viewtopic.php?p=26728#p26728

There is no challenge to the interpretation that Germany conducted harsh anti-partisan actions -- with significant rationale of partisan threat -- which sometimes included entire villages/neighborhoods (or ghettos, which were especially well-known as partisan hotbeds; also disease vectors). Jews (already recognized as chief propagators of partisan organizing) found within an area raging with partisan attacks/chaos were unfortunately within the exact line of fire for these circumstances. This is not a moral justification in most modern warfare, let alone peacetime, but WW2 was something much larger, especially for a nation (Germany) fully-recognizing the terror that Bolshevism had just wrought upon tens of millions of innocent Russian civilians for decades prior, which carried Germany into another world war. Germany had every reason to fear an extermination of German citizens (in some form or another, but stakes certainly at this scale) if the war was lost -- confirmed by the bombing-slaughter of Dresden, starvation-murder of millions of displaced Germans, and Soviet rape of two million German women immediately at war's end, followed by decades of depraved subversion (and more wars) scaled globally. This is all in addition to the immediate, local threat of partisan attacks within these occupied areas, and mostly at these exact "hotspots" you would point out as some indiscriminate "Jewish extermination" policy being carried out while denying any military context. It's absurd.

With that motive proved and not disputed, it is now explained with the Nazis were wanting to kill Jews as an enemy. They were not just a partisan enemy in Eastern Europe, posing a military threat. They were seen as an existential threat to Germany and Nazism. Deniers know that, when they post newspaper headlines about Judea declaring war on Germany and quote senior Nazis describing the Jewish problem and fears they had for the survival of Germany. The Nuremberg Race Laws had stripped Jews of all rights and citizenship. That is all Jews, not those involved or suspected of being involved in partisan actions, all of them, all across Europe. Fact is, as established by multiple sources of evidence, the Nazis would use killing to achieve policy. They euthanised the disabled and prisoners with mental disabilities. Jews were also considered a legitimate deadly target.

In Eastern Europe, the Nazis had a lot of assistance and they could be open about the killings, as citizens from the countries they occupied or aligned to, also killed Jews. It was different elsewhere in Europe, where there was resistance to killing. But, there was limited resistance to a resettlement programme. That is why transportation was presented as part of a resettlement programme, and not worked to death in a camp or gassed.

Deniers never take into account how anti-Semitic much of Europe was and how much assistance the Nazis had. It was that Europe wide assistance, that resulted in millions of Jews being arrested, transported, imprisoned and killed, 1939-45. If every country had reacted like Denmark or to a lesser extent France, or had not caved in like Hungary, far fewer Jews would have been killed.