Burden of Proof

[Kingfisher]

You don't know enough about the BBC either. They are not simply brainwashed. They have an agenda and it is not just to print and broadcast the news they think people want.

Of course they are brainwashed. No more or less than the rest of the world which is not "allowed" to view revisionist arguments.

No news organisation is totally devoid of agendas, and the BBC is most frequently accused of having a liberal one. Note that Zionist supporters detest the BBC, which they think is run by pro-Palestinians.

I'm not aware where I put credibility in Hilberg. I said I respected him for opposing the Holocaust Industry: a totally separate point. I haven't read Hilberg, but I have read Graf's Giant with feet of Clay, twice.

If you are interested in constructive debate, so am I, but I'm not interested in confrontational ad hominem argument. And let's not go even further OT.

[Kingfisher]

Barncat,

You are right in thinking that I find your antisemitism objectionable, just as I do all forms of racism and prejudice, including anti-German. On the other hand I am entirely in favour of a rational analysis of how power mongers of all kinds use their influence, and the way the Israeli tail wags the Western dog is an aspect of this. But even though they use the holocaust, the truth or otherwise of the exterminationist story is an independent issue of historical fact, as I have pointed out above.

I don't see the relevance of Madoff. He's a crook who, incidentally, largely swindled his fellow Jews. The world is full of crooks. Some of them (including most of the Russian Mafia) happen to be Jewish. Don't bother to answer as this is going even further OT.

[Barncat]

Kingfisher,

You insult me for being "anti-semitic" and then demand that I not answer as it
will take the thread OT. Now I understand why Trude has called you for being
over-controlling. As for calling me an anti-semite, so what? All of us are considered
anti-semites by 99% of Jews for just clicking on to this site.

You claim to be knowledgeable about the so-called Holocaust but have never read Hilberg.
You've got to be kidding. Any hoaxter would smack you down for claiming to be a revisionist
without bothering to know what you are revising.

I have read "The Destruction of the Europeon Jews" from cover to cover and can tell you that
it is hundreds of pages of relentless lying - all three volumes. Perhaps, if you knew what the
Jews like Hilberg have been claiming, you would not be so quick to call people who challenge
your moderation anti-semites.

BTW, you should know that Hilberg and Finklestein were mutual admirers. So much for
Finklestein as someone to challenge the opinions of Jews.

[Kingfisher]

Take it easy Barncat. I may have been a bit sharp with you, but you haven't exactly taken a generous view of my position, either.

I haven't read Hilberg because I can't see the point. I read Graf's Giant with Feet of Clay twice and he seems to do a pretty good demolition job, showing Hilberg's unquestioning reliance on very dubious sources. My respect for Hilberg applies to his resistance to the Holocaust Industry, which you would not expect from someone with his background and which will have lost him a few friends. My ambivalence about him is similar to Bradley's in the obituary he wrote.

I am not trying to "control" anyone; I am trying to put my view on the best approach for revisionists. I suggested above that we respect our differences and try to understand where and why we differ. Seems like the most constructive approach to me. (I supported you in another thread.)

Your approach comes over to me as "He who is not with us is against us." Mine is "Some who are against us might understand our position better if we can get past the taboo barrier". First step we seem to agree on. It is dispelling the assumption that most people have, that the Holocaust is proved by masses of evidence, when you and I know that there is hardly any except for contradictory and derivative eye-witness accounts, with much of the earlier stuff originating in Ehrenburg, Grossman and the Soviet Psychological warfare teams. (American and British PsychWar too.) At that level I'm pretty sure there was plenty of fraudulent evidence and documentation. Today the industry make no attempt to prove their position, actively discouraging any genuine enquiry with maudlin quasi-religious sentiment. The classic PR technique: don't convince people rationally, but work on their emotions.

We can't counter the above by coming on with: "This the Truth; we expect you to accept it." We will have more success with raising doubts. Why not start with the injustice of putting people in prison for historical investigation? Irving's imprisonment raised the profile of revisionism and gained him sympathy from unlikely sources. (Even Lipstadt condemned it, as did the UK's favourite rabid Zionist, Melanie Philips.) Then people might wonder what exactly it was that was so awful that they were imprisoned for it.

[Trude]

You don't know enough about the BBC either. They are not simply brainwashed. They have an agenda and it is not just to print and broadcast the news they think people want.

Of course they are brainwashed. No more or less than the rest of the world which is not "allowed" to view revisionist arguments.

No news organisation is totally devoid of agendas, and the BBC is most frequently accused of having a liberal one. Note that Zionist supporters detest the BBC, which they think is run by pro-Palestinians.

I'm not aware where I put credibility in Hilberg. I said I respected him for opposing the Holocaust Industry: a totally separate point. I haven't read Hilberg, but I have read Graf's Giant with feet of Clay, twice.

If you are interested in constructive debate, so am I, but I'm not interested in confrontational ad hominem argument. And let's not go even further OT.

Your first two paragraphs: The BBC is in the same boat as "the rest of the world." They are "not allowed" to even know what revisionist arguments are. They are liberals (and we all know that liberals oppose Holocaust exterminationist theories, don't we). Where does this brilliant insight [Not] of yours come from, Kingfisher?

Your second two paragraphs: You respect Hilberg, in spite of the fact he's written a dishonest book, knowingly, because he made a comment once critical of the HI. Does that mean he seriously opposed it? Isn't that a pretty easy and safe thing to do? These are not separate issues, but are about Hilberg's stated beliefs: one issue.
You are not interested in confrontation. Neither are the exterminationist historians and the defenders of the Shoah. They are not interested in real debate either, nor are you. You want to slow down the train; possibly, however, to where you are in your understanding. You call my argument ad hominem. What do you consider fair play? Being little pussy cats instead of a barncat?

[Barncat]

Trude,

Thanks for the support. I am not trying to smack down Kingfisher, or single him
out. There are a lot of revisionists who feel that our cause is hopeless, and who
consequently take only timid steps.

I believe that the hoax has been destroyed in the sense that any intelligent person
can find the information that is needed to disabuse him or herself of the old Jewish lies.
It is time for revisionists to show some real confidence and, if some people are not ready to
accept reality, that cannot be helped.

[Kingfisher]

Trude,

I'll ignore the rudeness and personal invective. I'm just not interested.

On substantive points: about the BBC, I did say Zionist supporters hate them. In a British context, liberal tends to equate with, if not anti-Zionist, at least a sympathetic position toward ordinary Palestinians. The BBC get invective from both sides, each perceiving that they favour the other. My own view? They don't make too bad a fist of it, but the news broadcasts tend, along with almost everyone else, to tilt towards Israel. We only see events and not background. Channel 4 does a better job of getting under the surface. They did an expose of the pro-Israeli lobby recently on Dispatches, with Peter Obourne. But I don't watch a lot of TV.

Barncat,

I think we recognise each other's positions and can debate constructively from them.

I believe that the hoax has been destroyed in the sense that any intelligent person
can find the information that is needed to disabuse him or herself of the old Jewish lies.

Having looked at the evidence and come to a revisionist conclusion myself, I have to agree with you in principle. But the simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of intelligent people in the world have not, and are unlikely to because of the enormous barriers placed in their way. The biggest barrier is the psychological one created by the taboo. However strongly you may feel yourself that terms like "hoax", "conspiracy" and "lies" are accurate, they will put off the people you want to attract, because they will confirm all the prejudices they have been conditioned with about "Holocaust Deniers". I think you have to address them in uncontroversial factual terms. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned the horse-to-water analogy. You have to get the horse to the water and persuade him to drink before he can experience the doubts you hope for. That is the key step: the doubts. Once you doubt, you become self-motivated to explore further. I. personally experienced a long period of limbo: aware of the Holocaust Industry and dubious of many aspects of the conventional story, but not wholly convinced that there were no gas chambers.

I know we have differing viewpoints on this and that's fine. I'm not trying to convert you. But I think it's important and constructive that where we differ, we should try to understand each other's reasons.

[Trude]

Trude,

I'll ignore the rudeness and personal invective. I'm just not interested.

On substantive points: about the BBC, I did say Zionist supporters hate them. In a British context, liberal tends to equate with, if not anti-Zionist, at least a sympathetic position toward ordinary Palestinians. The BBC get invective from both sides, each perceiving that they favour the other. My own view? They don't make too bad a fist of it, but the news broadcasts tend, along with almost everyone else, to tilt towards Israel. We only see events and not background. Channel 4 does a better job of getting under the surface. They did an expose of the pro-Israeli lobby recently on Dispatches, with Peter Obourne. But I don't watch a lot of TV.

Mr. Kingfisher,

Personal invective?! Where? Because I challenge what you say? I asked you above to point out where you see me engaging in "confrontational ad hominem argument; you didn't answer. I don't see any of that. You need to point to what you are referring to, not just accuse me of unspecified rudeness.

As far as your continuing apologia for the BBC, I see it totally differently than you do, so I cannot engage in a gentlemanly discussion taking your perceptions seriously. Nor your promotion of liberals as potential allies of revisionism. Only if it were watered down to what you want it to be, would that be the case.

[The Warden]

Here's what I don't understand (among other things. Ba Dum Tiss):

It's common for the Exaggerationists to say the the burden of proof is on the Revisionists.

But why would Revisionists have to disprove something that hasn't been proven. In my short time here, I've heard numerous responses explaining that historians and courts recognize the items as "authentic", so that's all they need to put the burden on the Revisionist. My issue is when the Exaggerationists are asked to show how and why the item was determined to be "authentic", they have no answer other than "Because I said so" or "They say so". Surely the process must be documented to prove authenticity, correct? Why don't they simply explain why the item is "authentic"?

Until that point, the burden of proof rest solely on the original accuser, the one presenting the item as evidence. Revisionists have no need to disprove something that hasn't been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This is the same thinking used by Wiesel. Until someone can definitively show he has no tattoo, he has no reason to show it. It's easier for him to cover his arm for the rest of his life instead of acknowledging the accusations. So why then do the Exaggerationists insist that the burden is on the Revisionists? They're simply not acknowledging your evidence because it hasn't been authenticated properly.

If it was just a matter of saying something is true, we'd never get anything recorded truthfully.
At least now, with technology, everything is much more reliable. It would appear that Exaggerationists are trying to apply their hypocritical views by using yesterday's standards in today's world. This is a sure sign of weak evidence.

[David Baker]

Jofo, welcome to the world of Revisionism. I have been involved in this activity for almost a decade, and I can tell you with confidence that the 'victims' of the so-called "Holocaust" would rather avoid any sort of official entanglements, particularly courts of law, where their compelling anecdotes would not be admissable. Your 'Burden of Proof' does not follow any tenet of legal discovery. Jews tell us what happened, and we are 'required' to believe them, no matter what mitigating evidence is presented to disprove their claims. First off, they tried the same "Six Million Jews Being Murdered" ruse during the First World War. You never hear about that from the "Exterminationist" camp. Second, the Jews own census data, taken before and after World War Two, shows a modest increase in the Jewish population, certainly not indicative of such a huge loss. Third, there is absolutely NO PROOF of their claim of mass gassings at any so-called "Death Camp". Not one autopsy out of the thousands of procedures performed on camp inmates specifies death by poison gas. The "Gas Chamber" claims were evaluated by highly knowledgable, credentialed forensic investigators, and were determined as being fabricated. Major Holocaust 'eyewitnesses' were exposed as frauds during the Zundel Trial in Canada, and forced to admit they did not witness any of the atrocities they claimed in their volumes of testimony, nor in their 'memoirs'. One other factoid never sees the light of day in this controversy: The fact that Jews DECLARED WAR on Germany. Germany, acting in conjunction with Zionists, deported Jews from occupied territories at first toward Palestine, but later into squalid concentration camps, where many Jews were employed as laborers in war material factories, and fuel synthesizing plants. This is where the "Death Camp" rumors were repeated, and embellished to the point where Jews, after World War Two, related absolutely ridiculous claims about Nazi atrocities at a lynching party named "Nuremberg". Where revisionism surfaces in this realm is the unmistakable similarity between World War One atrocity propaganda campaigns and the campaigns during World War Two. It is virtually a one-to-one comparison that is avoided in 'polite' conversations among eyewitnesses.

[Carolyn Yeager]

Jofo, welcome to the world of Revisionism. I have been involved in this activity for almost a decade, and I can tell you with confidence that the 'victims' of the so-called "Holocaust" would rather avoid any sort of official entanglements, particularly courts of law, where their compelling anecdotes would not be admissable. Your 'Burden of Proof' does not follow any tenet of legal discovery. Jews tell us what happened, and we are 'required' to believe them, no matter what mitigating evidence is presented to disprove their claims. First off, they tried the same "Six Million Jews Being Murdered" ruse during the First World War. You never hear about that from the "Exterminationist" camp. Second, the Jews own census data, taken before and after World War Two, shows a modest increase in the Jewish population, certainly not indicative of such a huge loss. Third, there is absolutely NO PROOF of their claim of mass gassings at any so-called "Death Camp". Not one autopsy out of the thousands of procedures performed on camp inmates specifies death by poison gas. The "Gas Chamber" claims were evaluated by highly knowledgable, credentialed forensic investigators, and were determined as being fabricated. Major Holocaust 'eyewitnesses' were exposed as frauds during the Zundel Trial in Canada, and forced to admit they did not witness any of the atrocities they claimed in their volumes of testimony, nor in their 'memoirs'. One other factoid never sees the light of day in this controversy: The fact that Jews DECLARED WAR on Germany. Germany, acting in conjunction with Zionists, deported Jews from occupied territories at first toward Palestine, but later into squalid concentration camps, where many Jews were employed as laborers in war material factories, and fuel synthesizing plants. This is where the "Death Camp" rumors were repeated, and embellished to the point where Jews, after World War Two, related absolutely ridiculous claims about Nazi atrocities at a lynching party named "Nuremberg". Where revisionism surfaces in this realm is the unmistakable similarity between World War One atrocity propaganda campaigns and the campaigns during World War Two. It is virtually a one-to-one comparison that is avoided in 'polite' conversations among eyewitnesses.

This is an excellent summation, David. You have gained my respect on this forum as someone who sees holo history with a very clear vision and is able to express it equally clearly. Thanks for all your input. Ernst Zundel, whose trial you mentioned, is the most courageous, honest, true-hearted individual among the many courageous men and women of our current time. He should have monuments built in his honor. (Just wanted to say that)

[Kingfisher]

I see it totally differently than you do, so I cannot engage in a gentlemanly discussion taking your perceptions seriously.

Thank you Carolyn. This nicely encapsulates your approach to debate in general.

[David Baker]

Carolyn,

Thank you for your compliment. I am impressed with your knowledge of this subject. Perhaps one day thinking people (if any remain..) will connect the dots of this eternal canard, and finally determine they've been duped for decades.

[Balsamo]

Jofo, welcome to the world of Revisionism. I have been involved in this activity for almost a decade, and I can tell you with confidence that the 'victims' of the so-called "Holocaust" would rather avoid any sort of official entanglements, particularly courts of law, where their compelling anecdotes would not be admissable. Your 'Burden of Proof' does not follow any tenet of legal discovery. Jews tell us what happened, and we are 'required' to believe them, no matter what mitigating evidence is presented to disprove their claims. First off, they tried the same "Six Million Jews Being Murdered" ruse during the First World War. You never hear about that from the "Exterminationist" camp. Second, the Jews own census data, taken before and after World War Two, shows a modest increase in the Jewish population, certainly not indicative of such a huge loss. Third, there is absolutely NO PROOF of their claim of mass gassings at any so-called "Death Camp". Not one autopsy out of the thousands of procedures performed on camp inmates specifies death by poison gas. The "Gas Chamber" claims were evaluated by highly knowledgable, credentialed forensic investigators, and were determined as being fabricated. Major Holocaust 'eyewitnesses' were exposed as frauds during the Zundel Trial in Canada, and forced to admit they did not witness any of the atrocities they claimed in their volumes of testimony, nor in their 'memoirs'. One other factoid never sees the light of day in this controversy: The fact that Jews DECLARED WAR on Germany. Germany, acting in conjunction with Zionists, deported Jews from occupied territories at first toward Palestine, but later into squalid concentration camps, where many Jews were employed as laborers in war material factories, and fuel synthesizing plants. This is where the "Death Camp" rumors were repeated, and embellished to the point where Jews, after World War Two, related absolutely ridiculous claims about Nazi atrocities at a lynching party named "Nuremberg". Where revisionism surfaces in this realm is the unmistakable similarity between World War One atrocity propaganda campaigns and the campaigns during World War Two. It is virtually a one-to-one comparison that is avoided in 'polite' conversations among eyewitnesses.

1/ First off, they tried the same "Six Million Jews Being Murdered" ruse during the First World War.

Sure, you can provide a proof for that, and of course some german witness or allies officials who confirm that the accusation was taken seriously (if it was ever made)

2/ Second, the Jews own census data, taken before and after World War Two, shows a modest increase in the Jewish population.

So you mean that the census organized by the very Anti-Semite government of Poland in 1921 and 1931, as well as the survey made in 1936 were controled by Jews? As well as the korherr report maybe? As the Jews in Poland constituded more or less 40% of the total Jewish population in Europe. You being right would indeed be something.

So the census data show a increase of the Jewish population?
I hope you are not refering to the world almanac thing!
It would mean that you consider possible that census were held during the Hostilities...almanacs are only data bases taken from census when held or other almanacs from other countries. It is not the result of the scientific team that would have traveled the world counting people.
Or, maybe the almanac guys sent nice letters to the Hitler and Stalin asking them if they could give up a bit of their times to provide their estimation of the Jewish population withing their territories for the year 41 to 44?

3/ Let's leave the gaz chambers behind as it is the root of revisionism and of the debate. It is up to anyone to think what their want.

4./ Well the eyewitnesses have also been the subject of many debates. But to keep focus on your statement. They are not affraid of trials (given their participation on every trials held since 45). Also it is untrue to say that Judges never disregard a witness statement. And of course, all witnesses are not Jews...

5./ The Jews declared war on Germany? Are you refering to the boycot in the early 30's? to the Wiezman declaration of 39? did any German or Polish Jewish organizations took part of it?
Please, share your knowledge.

6./ Germany, acting in conjunction with Zionists, deported Jews from occupied territories at first toward Palestine, but later into squalid concentration camps, where many Jews were employed as laborers in war material factories, and fuel synthesizing plants.

True, about 52.000 German Jews were able to settle in Palestine thanks to the Haavara agreement, at least officially. With the estimations of the illegal immigration, one could reach 285.000 Jews immigrated to Palestine between 1933 and 1940.
So after a decade of research what is your estimation of the number of Jews who came back from those "squalid camps"?

[sladek]

We're getting off track.
Coming back to the original question: I think there is not much room for discussion regarding the burden of proof.

The accusers of mass murder have to provide the proof of their allegation. The exterminationists claim that this has been done abundantly and refer to Nuremberg and the many related processes.
When revisionists now "apply for revision", the burden of proof (that the evidence used in these processes was flawed) is on them.
Comparing the procedure to a normal juridical one - which of course it is not - their appeal for revision has been rejected on the grounds that they didn't provide convincing arguments to reopen the case.

Up to here this could happen in any murder case. The revision could be tried as many times as there is money and patience to do it.

Where things get weird is when trying to revise a judgement becomes a crime, when providing arguments to reopen a case gets punishable in itself. This is currently the case in most European countries.

In Germany and Austria the situation is even worse: defense attorneys get accused and imprisoned themselves when they try to defend the accused revisionist, introducing material to prove the revision is necessary (case of lawyer Sylvia Stolz).

This is the absolute perversion of justice and you have to go centuries back to find similar cynism and abuse of power. Explaining this situation, I have convinced more people to have a critical look at the Holocaust religion than with absent gas chambers, non-existent Hitler orders and million-corrections on Auschwitz plates.