The Question of Conspiracy

[Stubble]

Majdanek stood as a monument to a lie for 80 friggin years. They still have that eyesore out there with the cremains of the 1.5 million dead.

So far as the rest, Bombsaway, I read your addendum. I didn't even edit my posted reply. It was already addressed in my reply.

I don't know what to say guys.

Go watch 'The Reader'?

[bombsaway]

Majdanek stood as a monument to a lie for 80 friggin years. They still have that eyesore out there with the cremains of the 1.5 million dead.

So far as the rest, Bombsaway, I read your addendum. I didn't even edit my posted reply. It was already addressed in my reply.

I don't know what to say guys.

Go watch 'The Reader'?

Do you think the Majdanek plaque is direct evidence of a larger campaign to fabricate a systematic operation to mass kill European Jews?

[Nessie]

Why do the Latvians still admit to joining with the Nazis and shooting Jewish Latvians in 1941-2? If it was a Soviet hoax, why do they still cooperate with it?

[Stubble]

What? No, I think it is a piece of wood with paint on it.

I think the exaggerated death toll is part of a hoax though, along with the fake gas chambers etc.

Majdanek isn't even considered an 'extermination camp'.

From 22 to 5. Revisionism seems to have a good track record.

[Stubble]

Why do the Latvians still admit to joining with the Nazis and shooting Jewish Latvians in 1941-2? If it was a Soviet hoax, why do they still cooperate with it?

Probably because they shot jewish partisans with the einsatzgruppen, and engaged in reprisals and in decimations with them Nessie.

Probably because jews died in Latvia and Latvians killed some of them.

They also might be admitting some of the pogroms, which are on film.

[bombsaway]

What? No, I think it is a piece of wood with paint on it.

I think the exaggerated death toll is part of a hoax though, along with the fake gas chambers etc.

Majdanek isn't even considered an 'extermination camp'.

From 22 to 5. Revisionism seems to have a good track record.

Ok, do you have any direct evidence for this?

If not, what is the strongest circumstantial evidence you have? Is it the Majdanek plaque?

Once you point me to your strongest evidence I'll give you a more in depth analysis of why I think it's weak. Unless you surprise me with something I haven't seen before.

[Stubble]

What? No, I think it is a piece of wood with paint on it.

I think the exaggerated death toll is part of a hoax though, along with the fake gas chambers etc.

Majdanek isn't even considered an 'extermination camp'.

From 22 to 5. Revisionism seems to have a good track record.

Ok, do you have any direct evidence for this?

If not, what is the strongest circumstantial evidence you have? Is it the Majdanek plaque?

Once you point me to your strongest evidence I'll give you a more in depth analysis of why I think it's weak. Unless you surprise me with something I haven't seen before.

Now I see what you are doing Bombs.

You can't show me film of jews going gassed, and i can't show you film of red commie bastards punching holes in the roof.

You are pointing out my bias and uneven standard of evidence.

I will reiterate, if it weren't for all of the lies and the betrayal of my trust by 'The Holocaust Industry' or whatever you want to call it, I'd be much more accepting of things and would have such a lopsided burden of proof.

[Nessie]

Why do the Latvians still admit to joining with the Nazis and shooting Jewish Latvians in 1941-2? If it was a Soviet hoax, why do they still cooperate with it?

Probably because they shot jewish partisans with the einsatzgruppen, and engaged in reprisals and in decimations with them Nessie.

Probably because jews died in Latvia and Latvians killed some of them.

They also might be admitting some of the pogroms, which are on film.

Why are Latvians still admitting to a Soviet hoax, that paints them in a very bad light, long after the collapse of the SU?

[bombsaway]

What? No, I think it is a piece of wood with paint on it.

I think the exaggerated death toll is part of a hoax though, along with the fake gas chambers etc.

Majdanek isn't even considered an 'extermination camp'.

From 22 to 5. Revisionism seems to have a good track record.

Ok, do you have any direct evidence for this?

If not, what is the strongest circumstantial evidence you have? Is it the Majdanek plaque?

Once you point me to your strongest evidence I'll give you a more in depth analysis of why I think it's weak. Unless you surprise me with something I haven't seen before.

Now I see what you are doing Bombs.

You can't show me film of jews going gassed, and i can't show you film of red commie bastards punching holes in the roof.

You are pointing out my bias and uneven standard of evidence.

I will reiterate, if it weren't for all of the lies and the betrayal of my trust by 'The Holocaust Industry' or whatever you want to call it, I'd be much more accepting of things and would have such a lopsided burden of proof.

You misunderstand me. I believe that the "commie bastards" punched holes in the roof. What I don't believe, is that this is good evidence of a larger campaign to fabricate a systematic operation to mass kill European Jews. But I can get into it in more depth if you want. Just give me the go ahead and I will justify my thinking about this particular event (the punching of holes).

I can also give you some things that would be good evidence. Documents saying it was happening, eg an order for subordinates to promulgate the story by fabricating evidence. Or one could get testimony from the subordinates carrying out this order. There's no uneven standard here, these things exist for the orthodox narrative - (the order being to mass kill Jews)

[Nessie]

....

You are pointing out my bias and uneven standard of evidence.

....

Your idea of evidence of a successful hoax, is where the hoax has failed.

Your bias and ignorance of evidencing is why you have fallen for the denial hoax.

[Nazgul]

Why are Latvians still admitting to a Soviet hoax, that paints them in a very bad light, long after the collapse of the SU?

This is irrelevent. The Latvians were shooting partisans and their supporters, due to the murder of thousands of German soldiers. In a war of annihalation, soldiers are not police. It was a matter of existence for another day.

[bombsaway]

Nessie please, you aren't helping. I'll see you guys tomorrow.

[Nazgul]

Your bias and ignorance of evidencing is why you have fallen for the denial hoax.

This standard phrase which you used when backed into a corner at RODOH is like water of a ducks back.
Here are some phrases etc used

You have done a good job explaining why revisionists have fallen for a hoax, whilst thinking you have explained why others have fallen for a hoax!

it is no wonder you have fallen for the denial hoax.

[Stubble]

....

You are pointing out my bias and uneven standard of evidence.

....

Your idea of evidence of a successful hoax, is where the hoax has failed.

Your bias and ignorance of evidencing is why you have fallen for the denial hoax.

Dude, that hoax stood as fact for over 60 years.

[Stubble]

Ok, do you have any direct evidence for this?

If not, what is the strongest circumstantial evidence you have? Is it the Majdanek plaque?

Once you point me to your strongest evidence I'll give you a more in depth analysis of why I think it's weak. Unless you surprise me with something I haven't seen before.

Now I see what you are doing Bombs.

You can't show me film of jews going gassed, and i can't show you film of red commie bastards punching holes in the roof.

You are pointing out my bias and uneven standard of evidence.

I will reiterate, if it weren't for all of the lies and the betrayal of my trust by 'The Holocaust Industry' or whatever you want to call it, I'd be much more accepting of things and would have such a lopsided burden of proof.

You misunderstand me. I believe that the "commie bastards" punched holes in the roof. What I don't believe, is that this is good evidence of a larger campaign to fabricate a systematic operation to mass kill European Jews. But I can get into it in more depth if you want. Just give me the go ahead and I will justify my thinking about this particular event (the punching of holes).

I can also give you some things that would be good evidence. Documents saying it was happening, eg an order for subordinates to promulgate the story by fabricating evidence. Or one could get testimony from the subordinates carrying out this order. There's no uneven standard here, these things exist for the orthodox narrative - (the order being to mass kill Jews)

From having to ascribe genocidal intent to the wansee minutes, to having to ascribe to the lie of 'Aktion Reinhard', consider me apprehensive to the idea there was a campaign of genocide.

If the absolute annihilation of European jewry had been the goal, then European jewry would have been annihilated.

You wouldn't have 'the diary of a young girl' who died of typhus after being salvation marched into Germany proper. You wouldn't have the Nobel prize winner Elie Weasel. They'd have been annihilated in the most state of the art mass murder facility ever constructed and it would have been done with the ultimate efficiency.

https://odysee.com/@Denierbud:0/ciaduringworldwar2:1



For your consideration.