No Massgraves

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Independent Thinker
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:46 pm

Postby Independent Thinker » 1 decade 7 years ago (Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:57 am)

Hannover wrote:ex: one says 23,600 thousand Jews were supposedly killed in one place but there is no such site, it's a lie, very simple


Yes, but how do you know there is no such place? It seems the Believers can show you witnesses to how the bodies were burned, and also Soviet reports on investigation of mass graves. And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, but can you prove they made it up and that there was nothing at all? And that the witnesses who say they destroyed the bodies lied or were tortured?

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 7 years ago (Thu Feb 13, 2003 11:27 am)

As to Hannover saying:
'ex: one says 23,600 thousand Jews were supposedly killed in one place but there is no such site, it's a lie, very simple'


Independent Thinker says:
"Yes, but how do you know there is no such place? It seems the Believers can show you witnesses to how the bodies were burned, and also Soviet reports on investigation of mass graves. And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, but can you prove they made it up and that there was nothing at all? And that the witnesses who say they destroyed the bodies lied or were tortured?"

We have all this witness testimony and Soviet reports and nothing whatsoever in way of physical evidence when the witness testimony and
Soviet reports indicate there would be massive amounts of it?

As to your question, 'And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, but can you prove they made it up and that there was nothing at all?'? Wouldn't you think it would be legitimate to ask you, 'And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, so can you prove they were not made up and that there is something tangible to prove it?'


You have something credible to answer that question?

You see, it's not up to skeptics to prove something wasn't, it's up to you to prove that there was and that would involve your presenting something more than something written on pieces of paper when what's written on the pieces of paper tells us there should have been documentation of massive physical evidence associated with the words written on pieces of paper.

Independent Thinker
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:46 pm

Postby Independent Thinker » 1 decade 7 years ago (Thu Feb 13, 2003 12:48 pm)

TMoran wrote:As to Hannover saying:
'ex: one says 23,600 thousand Jews were supposedly killed in one place but there is no such site, it's a lie, very simple'


Independent Thinker says:
"Yes, but how do you know there is no such place? It seems the Believers can show you witnesses to how the bodies were burned, and also Soviet reports on investigation of mass graves. And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, but can you prove they made it up and that there was nothing at all? And that the witnesses who say they destroyed the bodies lied or were tortured?"

We have all this witness testimony and Soviet reports and nothing whatsoever in way of physical evidence when the witness testimony and
Soviet reports indicate there would be massive amounts of it?


Don't understand the question. How do you know there's "nothing whatsoever in way of physical evidence"? If I well remember, you quoted a Soviet report on an assessment of physical evidence on another thread. I don't know if it's complete or just a summary with much more behind, but who tells you they just made it up? Let's assume there's also a German document talking about massacres at that place. Let's assume that the killers or those who buried or burned the corpses described the whole thing at a fair trial, and were cross-examined and all. How can you under such conditions say that there's no physical evidence, just because you don't trust Soviet reports? You will have to do an investigation yourself and prove that the Soviet report was totally wrong, or at least show that the document was forged and the witnesses were lying or someone tortured them. That's a lot of work for you.

TMoran wrote:As to your question, 'And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, but can you prove they made it up and that there was nothing at all?'? Wouldn't you think it would be legitimate to ask you, 'And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, so can you prove they were not made up and that there is something tangible to prove it?'


You have something credible to answer that question?


Of course. I don't think it's up to me to prove that there is "tangible proof" that a given report is correct. That's absurd, because I cannot organize and investigation of the site myself, and neither can you, and neither can a historian, and neither can a court. So what a court or a historian will do is trust that report until there are strong indications that it is wrong or even a better report proves it to be wrong. They will also compare it with other evidence like documents and eyewitness testimonials to make sure. I don't think that if you are accused of a murder and someone presents a report on the site of your murder you can just say "they made it all up" and they will have to prove they did not (prove a negative?). If the evidence is a document, you cannot just say "forgery" either, you will have to prove that it is or at least cast important doubt on it. Same for a witness. If this were not so, criminal justice would not work, no murderer would ever be convicted, and history could not be written about anything.
Do you understand?

TMoran wrote:You see, it's not up to skeptics to prove something wasn't,


That is not correct under certain circumstances, see above.

TMoran wrote:it's up to you to prove that there was and that would involve your presenting something more than something written on pieces of paper when what's written on the pieces of paper tells us there should have been documentation of massive physical evidence associated with the words written on pieces of paper.


A report written by a commission appointed to investigate crimes is not just a "piece of paper", and I do not either assume that the Soviet reports in question consisted just of a short summary, there must have been "documentation of massive physical evidence" behind them if the Soviet investigation commissions filled up two million pages of documents with reports of exhumations and forensic examinations and eyewitness testimonials and so on. But I don't think you need that detail in the report itself to prove a crime if you have independent documentary evidence or testimonials of several eyewitness that match each other or the confessions of those accused at a trial that was fair. That is not how crime justice or the writing of history can possibly work, not in regard to any event. Do we have for instance "documentation of massive physical evidence" that the Dresden attack, anniversary today if I'm correct, killed tens of thousands of people? Or about the expulsion crimes against Germans in Checoslovaquia? Or about the starvation of the Ukrainians by Stalin, or the purges, or the massacres committed by the Israelis of the Palestinians? I don't think your requirements will ever be matched in case of these event, but yet you have no doubt about them, have you?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 7 years ago (Thu Feb 13, 2003 12:50 pm)

I challenge 'Independent Thinker' to view other topics here about the 'burning of bodies' and the lies "eyewitnesses" say about that process...or start a new thread on such a subject.

I challenge 'Independent Thinker' to show me a mass grave with numbers even close to the allegations.

What Communist "reports" does he find credible and why?

Always good to have specifics when debating.

I'll wait.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 7 years ago (Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:10 pm)

As to Hannover saying:
'ex: one says 23,600 thousand Jews were supposedly killed in one place but there is no such site, it's a lie, very simple'


Independent Thinker (IT) said:
"Yes, but how do you know there is no such place? It seems the Believers can show you witnesses to how the bodies were burned, and also Soviet reports on investigation of mass graves. And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, but can you prove they made it up and that there was nothing at all? And that the witnesses who say they destroyed the bodies lied or were tortured?"

I had commented in reply to Independent Thinker (IT):
We have all this witness testimony and Soviet reports and nothing whatsoever in way of physical evidence when the witness testimony and
Soviet reports indicate there would be massive amounts of it?

IT has returned to say he didn't understand the question:
"Don't understand the question."

And then says as if he does understand the question:
"How do you know there's "nothing whatsoever in way of physical evidence"?"

The answer to that is easy. I've never seen any. You say you can come up with some example(s)?

IT had also said:
"If I well remember, you quoted a Soviet report on an assessment of physical evidence on another thread. I don't know if it's complete or just a summary with much more behind, but who tells you they just made it up?"

Evidently you would be referring to my recent post 'Documenting real events compared to UFO tales'? The one where I listed what we could find in way of documentation of physical evidence that the Germans established for the Bolshevik crime at the Katyn forest as compared to Bolshevik words on paper that tells us about German crimes? You should have replied to that as it is. Then you wonder how we would know there isn't more to the Bolshevik report? All I did was cut and paste if from this very BBS which was submitted by one of your brethren side.
Wouldn't you think the one who submitted it would have presented the most important parts if in fact there was more to it?

Maybe you have something to say about this. The Bolsheviks presented a two hundred (200) page report framing the Germans for the crime. Naturally they didn't include anything in way of documentation for what was in the 200 pages other than the usual 'witness' testimony.

IT had also said in repeat:
"How can you under such conditions say that there's no physical evidence, just because you don't trust Soviet reports?"

If you have something, then show it. If you don't have something, well ...
IT suggests:
"You will have to do an investigation yourself and prove that the Soviet report was totally wrong, or at least show that the document was forged and the witnesses were lying or someone tortured them. That's a lot of work for you."

And then in the 'next breath' says:
"Of course. I don't think it's up to me to prove that there is "tangible proof" that a given report is correct. That's absurd, because I cannot organize and investigation of the site myself, and neither can you, and neither can a historian, and neither can a court."

Looky here IT, pull yourself together. First you tell me to go out and do an investigation and then you say not even a 'historian' or a court can do it?

I don't have to do any investigation except to root out whatever the Bolshevik Holocaust story says and then ask, 'Where's the juice?' In fact I don't even have to root out any of them since you and your other independent thinkers will present them just like happened on this BBS.

Here, you have to come up with something like this -

In addition to commentary the German report on their investigation of the Bolshevik crime at the Katyn forest it includes scores of photos of the forensic investigation as it was taking place.

Aerial shots of the graves as they were being uncovered and the bodies being disinterred.

Photos of Polish civilians in trenches digging out the bodies.

Close up photos of the hands of the victims tied behind their backs.

Photos of many skulls showing the results of the general mode of execution - a shot in the back of the head.

Photos of the bodies laid out for attempted identification.

Photos of personal belongings found on the victims.

Photos of the field lab set up by the Germans.

Photos of journalists invited in by the Germans to witness the excavation and view the determining evidence such as identifications. letters and other documents found on the bodies that determined the date of the massacres.

Photos of forensic experts viewing the same thing.

These journalists and forensic experts came from -

Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Croatia, Netherlands, Romania, Switzerland, Slovakia and Hungary.

Then even, photos of Western Allied POW military officers witnessing the proceeding.


Now there you have an example of what you should find for any of the scores and scores of Bolshevik reports accusing the Germans of various mass exterminations. Don't bother looking for the one on the Katyn forest, the Bolshevik words have already been proven and admitted to as having been lies.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Postby neugierig » 1 decade 7 years ago (Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:55 pm)

Independent Thinker wrote:

“Of course. I don't think it's up to me to prove that there is "tangible proof" that a given report is correct. That's absurd, because I cannot organize and investigation of the site myself, and neither can you, and neither can a historian, and neither can a court...”

Very well said. I am asked to believe a document is genuine and what it says is accurate but there is no ‘tangible proof’ that it is. My point exactly. How was that document or other evidence obtained? Mr. Jackson, in his report to the President on June 6,1945 gives us a clue: “... instructed those engaged in collecting or processing evidence; visited the European theater to expedite the examination of captured documents, and the interrogation of witnesses and prisoners; ...” No mention of anybody from the defence present when the evidence was “processed” (whatever that means, sorted maybe?) or when the witnesses were “interrogated”. As well, as I’ve said before, the Nazis made 6 Million Jews disappear along with most of the killing apparatuses and left all the documents behind. You can try that on someone who’s about to purchase the Brooklyn bridge. And Soviet evidence? I still remember some of the show trials in the former GDR, conducted under Soviet auspices and no, I don’t believe their documents can be taken at face value. (BTW, the trials in West Germany were far fro ’fair’ as well) One has to take into consideration that there was an ideological struggle between National Socialism and Communism. Hitler hated Communism and made sure it was portrayed in the worst possible light, ’..murderous regime, etc...’ and when the tables turned,....

As for the last part of the above statement, no one is asking you to conduct an investigation, but yes, a court can order one and that’s what I’m asking for all along. An investigation by an independent commission, not by someone from either side trying to prove what they claim is right.

Wilf

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 7 years ago (Thu Feb 13, 2003 8:15 pm)

Hebden wrote: We thought you had read the book by Mr. Breitman? In which case, it should be clear that these decodes are held by the US National Archives, based, we believe, in Washington DC. We assume one can order copies of documents by mail or phone.

The text we quoted was from pages 63-65 and the attendant notes are on page 265 where details are given of the relevant decodes.


Breitman’s book should include transcripts of the decodes, or at least a few of them, like Arad does in The Einsatzgruppen Reports. But he doesn’t, even though he says, that his book is based to a great extent on these decodes.

So we have to believe him, and I don’t.

I have no intention to back up the man’s book by checking out the archives and posting it. Breitman is your man, you quoted him to prove a point, not me, so why don’t you go to Washington and back up your points?

By the way, this thread is really about massgraves, Mr. Hebden.
:D
The Holocaust hoaxsters exaggerate and embellish a 60+ year old event in order to abuse the Palestinians and rob them of their land, while claiming a free pass for their barbaric conduct on account of the "holocaust".

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 7 years ago (Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:40 pm)

Independent Thinker wrote:Can you tell me where I can find all these claims? I would like to read them. Are they downloaded on a Revisionist site?

Sure.
The Soviets claimed
Over 4 million gassed in Auschwitz, IMT document 008-USSR
3 million steamed/gassed in Treblinka, 337-USSR, GARF, 7445-2-126, p. 240
1.5 million (not 360,000) killed in Majdanek, IMT VII, p.648

GARF: Gosudarstvenni Archiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (States Archive of the Russian Federation), Moscow
:D
The Holocaust hoaxsters exaggerate and embellish a 60+ year old event in order to abuse the Palestinians and rob them of their land, while claiming a free pass for their barbaric conduct on account of the "holocaust".

Dan
Member
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 9:25 am

Postby Dan » 1 decade 7 years ago (Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:08 pm)

A report written by a commission appointed to investigate crimes is not just a "piece of paper", and I do not either assume that the Soviet reports in question consisted just of a short summary, there must have been "documentation of massive physical evidence" behind them if the Soviet investigation commissions filled up two million pages of documents with reports of exhumations and forensic examinations and eyewitness testimonials and so on


In a civilized, Christian country this could be true, but even then justice is sometimes perverted, as with the Tesch and Weinbacher murders by the British, and the acceptance of Soap Libel affidavits and butt-kissing conclusions by the Americans. With the godless Soviets, one should consider them false, never to be trusted. We really do need open and international investigations of these alleged crimes.

Independent Thinker
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:46 pm

Postby Independent Thinker » 1 decade 7 years ago (Fri Feb 14, 2003 6:18 am)

neugierig wrote:Independent Thinker wrote:

“Of course. I don't think it's up to me to prove that there is "tangible proof" that a given report is correct. That's absurd, because I cannot organize and investigation of the site myself, and neither can you, and neither can a historian, and neither can a court...”

Very well said. I am asked to believe a document is genuine and what it says is accurate but there is no ‘tangible proof’ that it is. My point exactly. How was that document or other evidence obtained?


That’s a valid objection for the defense, provided you have something to show for it.

That is, provided you have evidence or at least substantial indications that the exhumation/forensic investigation of a killing site was not done in a professional and objective manner. I don’t think an argument that goes “it was done by a commission of the Soviet government, which government also …” would be considered substantial by any court of justice.

That is, provided you have evidence or at least substantial indications that a document was tampered with. I don’t think that “I don’t know where the document came from” (assuming this would apply to any documents shown at Nuremberg or before West German courts) would be considered a substantial objection by any court of justice.

That is, provided you have evidence or at least substantial indications that a witness is not reliable, or that a defendant’s confession was extracted by torture or other illegal means. I don’t think that any court of justice in the world we do anything other than laugh at you, counselor, if you made such claims without substantiating them.

As to the “neither can a court”, see my last post to Tom Moran. Of course a court “can” do anything. But where in the world is any court obliged to expend considerable time and resources on its own investigation of the physical evidence, assuming the site of the crimes is accessible at all, unless there are substantial indications that the investigation done by another criminal justice authority are not accurate?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 7 years ago (Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:45 am)

Much ado about nothing.
If there had been an excavation that revealed what the Communists allege we would see it, simple. We do not & will not.
A piece pf paper alleging massive physical evidence, alleging massive graves without the massive physical evidence to back it up is worthless and is necessarily a lie. That's the way it works in the rational, logical world. The 'holocau$t Industry could win out just by showing the massgraves, they cannot.
There's no need to attempt to spin it any other way. No mass graves commensurate with the allegations then no evidence, no crime as alleged.

And it is the responsibility of the prosecution to produce the physical evidence, and the fact that they cannot is what we're talking about here.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Postby neugierig » 1 decade 7 years ago (Fri Feb 14, 2003 2:36 pm)

Independent Thinker wrote: That's a valid objection for the defence, provided you have something to show for it.


In my previous post I explained why I have misgivings about the veracity of documents and evidence in general. The prosecution compiled them/it.
Under anglo-saxon judicial procedures the prosecution only needs to consider incriminating evidence. Therefore, I have 'reasonable doubts' that we have all the evidence. And in a real court that doubt goes to the benefit of the accused: " in dubio pro reo".
This is why I would welcome an 'independent' commission to investigate.
But, it aint gonna happen, and I'm outta here. :)

Wilf

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 7 years ago (Sat Feb 15, 2003 5:35 am)

This from the newly released English edition of 'The Rudolf Report':
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/4.html#4.2.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, numerous mass graves, containing altogether hundreds of thousands of bodies of victims of the Soviets, were discovered, excavated, and investigated. Not only was the number of victims determined, but in many cases the specific cause of death as well. In the same regions where many of these mass graves were found, one million Jews are said to have been shot by the Einsatzgruppen: yet no such grave has ever been reported found, let alone dug and investigated, in the more than half a century during which these areas have been controlled by the USSR and its successor states.

During the conflict in Kosovo in 1999, rumors about mass killings by Serbs spread around the world. After the fighting was over, an international forensic commission arrived in Kosovo, searching, excavating, and forensically investigating mass graves. These graves proved to be not only fewer than the Serbs' Albanian opponents had alleged, but to contain small fractions of the number of victims claimed.

Did the Allies attempt, during the Second World War and in the years immediately following, to find and to investigate mass graves of persons said to have been victims of the Germans? So far as is known, only once: at Katyn. But the findings of the Soviet forensic commission, which blamed the mass murder of several thousand Polish officers buried there on the Germans, are today generally considered a fabrication. The report of the international forensic commission invited by the Germans in 1943, on the other hand, which found that the Soviets had carried out this mass murder, is today considered accurate even by the Russian government.[73] Cf. F. Kadell, Die Katyn Lüge, Herbig, Munich 1991.


- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 7 years ago (Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:52 am)

Included in Hannover's passing along something from Rudolf:
'During the conflict in Kosovo in 1999, rumors about mass killings by Serbs spread around the world. After the fighting was over, an international forensic commission arrived in Kosovo, searching, excavating, and forensically investigating mass graves. These graves proved to be not only fewer than the Serbs' Albanian opponents had alleged, but to contain small fractions of the number of victims claimed.'



Ex-Pres. Clinton had said that 100,000 Albanians had been killed by the Serbs. His Jewish Secretary of State Albright, the instigator of U.S. involvement said 100,000. Then his Jewish Secretary of Defense Cohen said 100,000.

Then we started to get reports of FBI teams being sent over to investigate. We got the reports of them going and then that was it. As if they never went in the first place.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 7 years ago (Sat Feb 15, 2003 3:02 pm)

I recall that during the Kosovo media push we often heard how this resembled the 'holocaust'. Interesting, that is pretty much correct, but not in the way the judeo-supremacists had intended.

At Kosovo they found some actual graves, but they were miniscule when compared to the allegations. A Finnish forensic team indicated that they appeared to be combat victims as they found traces of gun powder, meaning they had been firing weapons; once again, a real forensic investigation.

As for 'holocau$t' as alleged we have no mass graves to substantiate the allegations, no verifiable forensic studies, nothing.

For Albright, Cohen, and the media it appears to be a cry for help.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dresden and 2 guests