Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10304
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations

Postby Hannover » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:06 pm)

Those of "The Holocau$t Industry" tell the world that truly immense human remains of the alleged "6,000,000 Jews & millions of others" exist in specifically known, even marked locations*, yet there are no such remains.

I challenge CODOH Forum registrant NFrNj and any other Believer to show the alleged human remains of the alleged millions.

* Like the alleged mass graves for an alleged 900,000 Jews who were allegedly "murdered" at Treblinka. Or say the alleged 34,000 Jews allegedly shot into a ravine a Babi Yar, Ukraine and buried, or the alleged remains of an alleged 250,000 "murdered" Jews claimed to exist at Sobibor.

BTW, communist mass murder sites like Kuropaty and Katyn Forest have been excavated and the human remains displayed.
Yet no such remains at the much larger claimed 'holocaust' sites are to be found.

- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable ‘holocaust’ storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

NFrNJ
Member
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:10 am

Re: Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations

Postby NFrNJ » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:42 pm)

Challenge accepted.

I can't.

Never claimed I could.

For some reason the moderators seem to think I did claim that, but I never did. Nor did I ever claim that Goebbels diaries prove anything, let alone that huge numbers of jews were killed.

Anyone claiming I did can try to quote me. It is a straw man. And this thread, this challenge, is based on that same straw man assumption.

The moderators will probably not allow this post to go through because it is pointing out their repeated inability to tell the difference between me trying to stick to a thread topic and someone dodging legitimate questions about what they had said. I did not do that. I just refused to engage with repeated off topic "challenges" which are based on straw men, and in no way engaged with what I had said or claimed or asserted, or the topic I was discussing or that was the topic of the thread.

They have deleted two of my posts because i refused to dilute the thread with a non thread topic and pointed out that the idea being challenged was not my position and i had nothing to say on the subject.

They have deleted two subsequent posts because I am trying to get them to admit they made a mistake, and they are allowing the forum to be dominated by straw men challenges, that derail threads. This is not only outside the guidelines but makes a mockery of them, and the name of this forum. Open debate? Nonsense.

Invalid challenges should be censured by the moderators if they continue, not upheld by them. Otherwise this turns every thread into a repeat of the same debate about archaeology - one that I did not raise, and which had no relevance to the meaning of the term "liquidate" in the goebbels diaries.

Unless you rule that everything is about the supposed mass graves, that it is the only relevant subject to discuss. In which case this not a forum for debate about anything else. Pointless, and useless.

I dare you to let this post go up. Prove this is not just a forum for a coterie of information bubble self congratulating bullies who cannot debate a topic without having to slide the thread and dodge and straw man and call in their pals to stop anyone who can actually argue from talking.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10304
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations

Postby Hannover » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:14 pm)

NFrNJ, among some irrelevant things, said:
Challenge accepted.
I can't.
Never claimed I could.
Yet you claim Jews were exterminated by the millions and placed in mass graves, i.e.: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12359 and viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3763 and viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13087

What's happening here is that you and the purveyors of the impossible narrattve have painted yourselves into a corner with no way out.

'6,000,000 Jews & 5,000,000 others' (as the tall tale goes, more than the city of London, England) allegedly murdered, dumped into claimed mass graves which cannot be shown. Of course not, because it did not happen.

Combine that with the scientific impossibility of the alleged 'gas chambers, which supposedly were the murder weapons in 2/3 of the alleged murders, and we're left with empty propaganda / lies which could not have happened.

That is the very definition of fraud, the very essence of The Big Lie. And you've been caught red-handed, there is no way out except acceptance that you have been hustling a scam.

BTW, all 'holocaust' Revisionists are former Believers.

‘O, what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to deceive’.

- Hannover

No alleged human remains of millions upon millions to be seen in allegedly known locations, no 'holocaust'.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2350
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:51 pm)

Firstly, it should be pointed out that NFrNJ has in fact claimed mass graves existed. OP challenged him regarding Treblinka, where he stated:
"the treblinka Gold Rush was a real problem for them, as it exposed the mass graves." viewtopic.php?p=95602#p95602

He also, in this thread, insinuated that the "Operation Reinhardt camps" (Treblinka II consistently alleged to have been the deadliest of all) played a major role in the "process of industrialising murder": viewtopic.php?p=95591#p95591

So the challenge is totally reasonable. But it's also OK for NFrNJ to admit:
"No I can not show you physical evidence substantiating my position, even though I believe it exists in enormous quantities at known locations" :lol:

This NFrNJ guy is not random, he is from another website and has been repeatedly spanked there in every "Holocaust" debate. He has become nothing but a joke to literally anyone who has interacted with him more than once. If you followed his recent posts you will understand why.
NFrNJ joined in December and focused exclusively on my posts, my opinions, my statements. He responded here, his first post ever: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12911&p=94875#p94875

It was on the Einsatzgruppen. So a thread was made for him here: viewtopic.php?t=12912

Instead of trying to substantiate any claims made about the Einsatzgruppen, he called me "disingenuous" by stating that I implied that only 3000 people were alleged to have been used to do this. I did not use the term "only" but I conceded that I should have mentioned other groups:
Lamprecht wrote:I agree that I could have been more specific about that because it is the standard storyline, so your initial point (that the "official story" includes local collaborating groups) is appreciated.

There was no issue at all. I guess at this point he was taken off moderation so he could make posts without approval.

Then, he comes back and enters this thread about one Goebbels diary entry: viewtopic.php?t=3763

He makes a very long post I was surprised to get approved, but it actually was relevant to something I said, to wit:
Lamprecht wrote:in most instances it can not have that meaning

So 9 months ago I wrote that in "most" instances in his diary, "liquidate" can not mean kill. His reply went through all of the entries that were posted to identify the precise meaning of "Liqudate" and asked a bunch of silly, repetitive, rhetorical questions. Go ahead and try to read his whole post, see if you don't get bored :lol:

But then, in my very first reply to him in that thread 4 days ago, I stated:
Lamprecht wrote:I think you're right anyway about the term meaning "kill" in that specific entry (and the majority of the rest)

So, what's the problem? For some reason, that was not enough for him. In a reply to that post, NFrNJ stated:
NFrNJ wrote:The only challenge I made to you was to justify the exact thing you said. Kindly stick to the point.

By then I had already recanted. I stated that I think that he is/was correct on this point. But let's try to be reasonable: Maybe he just didn't notice, perhaps he didn't have his morning coffee at that point in time. It's no big deal, we all make mistakes. I have over 1,000 posts: if you look through them all I guarantee you will find some more mistakes. I appreciate them being corrected.

He made 2 more replies (so 3 in a row) and again stated:
NFrNJ wrote:kindly show us the rest [of the diary entries] so we can compare numbers and see if your claim that "in most instances it could not have that meaning" is true.

Again, I had already recanted that claim. I replied directly to that statement, first sentence of my reply:
Lamprecht wrote:That is no longer my claim

So that is already 2 instances in which I explained that it is not my position.
He also quoted the following challenge I made:
Lamprecht wrote:Which Goebbels diary entry do you think actually proves the "Holocaust" happened -- meaning, that "Holocaust denial" is wrong?

He quoted the question in his post yet dodged it completely. Regardless, in my subsequent response, in the very first line I reiterated what I already had stated (so, the third time) but worded it in a slightly different way:
Lamprecht wrote:I am quite happy to accept that my use of "Most" in that instance was incorrect.

So this is the third time that I conceded the point. Maybe he didn't read it the first time because it was in the middle of a rather long post, or he just wasn't paying close attention. But here it was the first sentence so there is no excuse. I also reiterated the exact point again in that post, half-way down. So that is four times I had stated in that thread that it was no longer my position.

Then in his next reply, he goes on about deaths in transit (from a response I made on his rhetorical question about Jews "being kindly transported") asking if anyone was prosecuted for it, if the "authorities" were bothered. He even realized that it was off-topic, proven by his statement:
NFrNJ wrote:this is not on topic for the thread so perhaps you would like to discuss that in a new thread.

There was no need to correct him here, he had the right idea. I shouldn't have created this derailment opportunity, whatever. So I decided to exclude all discussion of the train from my next reply. He already acknowledged that it was off topic.

So, in my next reply in that thread, I said that he dodged multiple challenges (and he did). Then he made another post which was deleted while I was responding to it. However, fragments of it can be shown in my final reply to him there (I did not quote about 80% of it because it was off-topic and irrelevant). He complained that I didn't answer his question about German authorities caring about the train deaths. I told him to go make a thread about it if he cares so much. He hasn't done this yet. I wonder why? Perhaps he did not ask about it because he wanted to discuss it, but because he wanted to spam silly [rhetorical] questions so he could complain about "dodging" - your guess is as good as mine.

In the same deleted reply, NFrNJ blundered:
NFrNJ wrote:You have still failed to tell us how many of the uses of the term "liquidation" in Goebbels diaries you think cannot be read to mean "killing"

But I had already said, multiple times, that I acknowledged that my use of the word "Most" was incorrect. He did not previously ask me to specifically count the number of uses, so it is disingenuous for him to claim I "failed" to do something when I was not challenged to do it. It would also be a completely redundant/pointless endeavor.
He did previously ask me to show the rest of the entries (but did not specify an inclusion of any sort of count) but in the same sentence revealed that the purpose of the entire exercise was to test the claim I had already recanted. Therefore, I had no obligation to comply with the challenge.
Remember: In his first post in the thread he went entry-by-entry in an attempt to analyze what "liquidate" meant in each instance, so he was asking me to do what he had already done, claiming he asked me to do it but actually he did not, allegedly for the purpose of testing the validity of a claim I had by then recanted four times.

So I suggested that he go through the German text to find more examples of the term. Unsurprisingly, he never did this either. Even though at first glance it would appear that he did have an intrinsic interest in a full-scale literary analysis of the Goebbels' diary's use of "Liquidate" for its own sake. Maybe instead he was just pretending to care about it because he can not make a convincing argument in favor of his "Holocaust" conspiracy theory. So he does not even try to do so. Instead, we see him pathetically grasping at straws, desperately searching for something I said many months ago that wasn't correct just to use as some sort of personal attack. He can attack me all he wants, it doesn't hurt my feelings. I appreciate the correction. All it does is speak volumes about what kind of person he is. :lol:


Furthermore, NFrNJ's injudicious whining about alleged "dodging" is laughably absurd. He has no right to demand anyone provide him with a tedious philological investigation of a text. The forum rules state nothing of the sort. The rules say that you must comply with challenges on claims/assertions you make, but I had already recanted the "most" statement so I no longer had any obligation (as per the rules) to "respond directly / specifically by providing the information requested." It was no longer my claim or assertion. I made that clear in no less than four instances. I literally said in the post he was replying to:
Lamprecht wrote:That is no longer my claim

So, for the fifth time in the Goebbels thread, I acknowledged to him in my subsequent reply that I recanted the original statement by stating, again, that:
Lamprecht wrote:I am quite happy to accept that my use of "Most" in that instance was incorrect.

And since he had an additional reply in that very thread deleted, it means he was exposed to this admission in no less than five seperate instances.

Anyway, that is the backstory of this "mistake" that he is completely obsessed with.

And so -- after seeing five different statements wherein I "admitted to the mistake" -- NFrNJ entered this thread and unwittingly posted the following nonsense:
NFrNJ wrote:They have deleted two subsequent posts because I am trying to get them to admit they made a mistake

So he is not trying to debate the "Holocaust"? Fair enough, even though that's the stated purpose of the forum. But as pointed out, the error has been acknowledged five times in the appropriate thread. He replied to every post that contained the admissions. Why is he incapable of moving on? I stated it over and over and over. He presumably read the posts since he replied to them.

And for some reason here, the word "they" is being used to describe both me and the moderator. We are separate people.
The moderator confirmed to me that the most recent deleted post was in fact in the Goebbels thread. This morning, for the second time, I asked the moderator to be extra forgiving on NFrNJ, knowing that he has personal issues that sometimes prevent him from behaving in a civilized, mature, and respectable manner. This curious behavioral disposition of his commonly results in the false conclusion that he is "trolling" - which by definition must be conscious and deliberate. I quickly realized that this would produce a serious risk of him getting banned, in all likelihood for reasons he is mentally incapable of understanding, so I requested some leniency. I really just don't think he can help himself.

Back to the point: There is no excuse for NFrNJ to continue "trying to" get me to "admit a mistake" when that has already occurred five times in the appropriate thread, over the span of 4 days. If he was actually trying to discuss the "Holocaust" (the subject of the forum) rather than obsessing over one sentence I posted (which really has no significance in the overall "Holocaust" story) he would have instead spent his time and energy:

- Making a thread "about the German authorities [sic] reaction to the deaths of thousands on one of their trains"
- Trying to substantiate his claim that "Final Solution" became a policy of extermination "by mid 1942" (in the thread created for the purpose)
- Continuing the discussion/responding to the challenges in the Einsatzgruppen thread created for him back in December
- Creating a thread focused on a specific village, as challenged, in order to to substantiate his positive claim of an alleged German "policy of mass murder of entire villages on the eastern front"
- Creating a thread, as per a challenge, substantiating his positive claim of alleged "experiments with the [homicidal] gas vans in 1941"
- Creating a thread, as per a challenge, substantiating his positive claim of alleged homicidal "gassings in Block 11 at Auschwitz" in 1941
- Creating a thread on any topic to justify his so passionate but irrational belief that an extermination policy resulting in the death of millions of Jews actually happened, despite being unable to show a single "huge mass grave" in support of this extreme accusation
etc..

He did none of those things. Yet he joined a "Holocaust debate/discussion forum" out of his own volition. I wonder why :lol:
What could explain such behavior? Why is he so concerned about my opinions, rather than discussing/proving the "Holocaust"? I am not a licensed psychiatrist so I will leave the reader to make up his own mind.

And then, NFrNJ whines about "Invalid challenges" :lol:

He also stated:
NFrNJ wrote:Prove this is not just a forum for a coterie of information bubble self congratulating bullies who cannot debate a topic without having to slide the thread and dodge and straw man and call in their pals to stop anyone who can actually argue from talking.

Yeah, except anyone who has been here for a while and read the previous debates realizes that exterminationists can, and have, expressed their positions openly here on a number of occasions. Most recently I believe was the user "Pon" - who I don't believe had any posts deleted. He did have a habit of derailing threads but since he clearly made an honest effort to discuss the "Holocaust" the moderator made new threads and moved the off-topic posts into them for organization/readability purposes.

It is quite obvious that the reason your experience has been different is because you behaved differently. Everyone understands this but you :?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations

Postby Breker » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:44 pm)

I really don't see the need for playing verbal games with the likes of NFrNJ.
I say that since, as proven, the alleged gas chamber structures were not capable of doing the acrobatics that Jews perversely say they performed. And it is proven fact that the alleged human remains of alleged mega-millions do show up where they are claimed to be.
As we say in tennis: game, set, match.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2350
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:20 am)

Breker wrote:I really don't see the need for playing verbal games with the likes of NFrNJ.

Correct, his entire post was just a derailment attempt to demand something which happened 4 days ago and 5 times. Because he is new he wasn't aware of this thread:

name a specific "holocaust" topic censored / banned here
viewtopic.php?t=7322

Where he might find that his statements would have been more appropriate. Now he knows.

And besides, it's clear he has no intention of showing us the pits, and despite assurances that he never claimed the existence of pits/mass graves at Treblinka he did so here:
"the treblinka Gold Rush was a real problem for them, as it exposed the mass graves." viewtopic.php?p=95602#p95602

He complains that it's silly if everything is about the alleged mass graves (which, if he was being accused himself of mass murder in a criminal court, he/his lawyer would absolutely make sure it was the focus of the discussion) but I provided many examples of things he could also have started a discussion about:
Lamprecht wrote:If he was actually trying to discuss the "Holocaust" (the subject of the forum) rather than obsessing over one sentence I posted (which really has no significance in the overall "Holocaust" story) he would have instead spent his time and energy:

- Making a thread "about the German authorities [sic] reaction to the deaths of thousands on one of their trains"
- Trying to substantiate his claim that "Final Solution" became a policy of extermination "by mid 1942" (in the thread created for the purpose)
- Continuing the discussion/responding to the challenges in the Einsatzgruppen thread created for him back in December
- Creating a thread focused on a specific village, as challenged, in order to to substantiate his positive claim of an alleged German "policy of mass murder of entire villages on the eastern front"
- Creating a thread, as per a challenge, substantiating his positive claim of alleged "experiments with the [homicidal] gas vans in 1941"
- Creating a thread, as per a challenge, substantiating his positive claim of alleged homicidal "gassings in Block 11 at Auschwitz" in 1941
- Creating a thread on any topic to justify his so passionate but irrational belief that an extermination policy resulting in the death of millions of Jews actually happened, despite being unable to show a single "huge mass grave" in support of this extreme accusation
etc..

We can just forget about all of that "Goebbels liquidate" nonsense so he can redeem himself and show good faith by discussing a topic relevant to the "Holocaust" (the purpose of the forum) :)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1815
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations

Postby Moderator » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:41 pm)

NFrNJ:
Any posts deleted by your were due to guideline violations of dodging and off topic trolling.
As was stated, you could have always made a complaint here:
name a specific "holocaust" topic censored / banned here
viewtopic.php?t=7322
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1815
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: Challenge to Believer NFrNJ to Show us the Claimed Gigantic Human Remains said to Exist in Known Locations

Postby Moderator » 2 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:24 am)

A reminder of this thread to NFrNJ.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests