How much evidence can we expect?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
sqeecoo
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am

How much evidence can we expect?

Postby sqeecoo » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri May 29, 2009 8:03 am)

Hi everyone.
A while ago, I stumbled upon Butz's "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" and thought to myself "heh, let me have a look at what this neo-nazi conspiracy crackpot says and have a laugh". However, I was surprised by the reasonable arguments and the complete lack of neo-nazism* I found. Many of these arguments I could not answer. Of course, I am no expert, but one would expect the evidence to be readily available on the net if it is truly "overwhelming". I could not find very much. Instead, I found a lot of rhetoric and fallacious arguments, and plenty of irrelevant photos and unclear or anonymous witness testimonies.

* I assumed Holocaust-deniers were neo-nazis, and I don't expect much from them since I think nazis are fanatical murderous bastards. However, if there were no gas chambers, they are no worse than the murderous bastards among the Soviets or British colonialists. I would still strongly disagree with neo-nazis (there seem to be plenty here, too :mrgreen: ) even if this were the case. On the other hand I don't use arguments ad hominem. I care about the quality of the argument, not the person making it.


I did find a good, comprehensive site, http://www.nizkor.org/, but it was not free from misleading rhetoric either. I'll have to study it in detail though, and read a few of the main pro-Holocaust books like Shermer's and Pressac's (not easy to get) before I'll make up my mind. This is too serious a topic to approach lightly. However, the fact that the alleged masses of evidence are not readily available, and the hot air and rhetoric I came across, not to mention the downright totalitarian suppression of critical thinking, is very worrying.

So much for my introduction. The question I want to ask is the following:
Revisionists point out that there is little or no forensic evidence, no documents, and plenty of holes in witness testimonies. However, how much evidence can we reasonably expect?
The lack of documents is a serious issue, but they could perhaps be destroyed. There are also some, like the Jaeger report, that do seem to indicate mass extermination. But this is certainly a major problem for the mainstream theory.

However, what about forensic evidence? How much could we realistically find? How easy is is to find mass graves? Obviously in places like Treblinka some MUST be found if the story is true, but what of, say, Auschwitz? Have attempts to find them been made? Can we expect them to succeed immediately? Once graves are found, is it possible to determine how the people died and who they were? Is it reasonable to request solid forensic proof here?
Regarding forensic evidence on the remains of the alleged gas chambers, I don't know enough about the science to be able to tell what is reasonable to expect.

Regarding witnesses, can we reasonably expect that there are witnesses who went through this whole horrible traumatic experience (even for the Nazis, at least at the trial) and are still able to give a testimony with NO holes in it? Testimonies that describe in detail the workings of the gas chambers where they (allegedly) saw thousands of people die? Can we expect this much from them?


It's clear what conclusive evidence would be here. However, can we realistically expect to get it, even if the mainstream theory is true? Is it reasonable to expect that there is a single indubitable piece of evidence or witness despite the chaos and horror and destruction of the war and the Nazi regime?
Finally, is it reasonable to expect to have a theory on any aspect of the war in which no holes can be poked and no weaknesses identified, regardless of whether it is true? I personally have not found such a theory in my somewhat extensive reading on the military aspects of the war.

In other words, historical theories are conjectures, and in analyzing the chaos of war even more guesswork and uncertainty is involved. If gas chambers existed, what is the reasonable minimum of evidence we would expect to find, and would this satisfy the revisionist criteria for proof?

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

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri May 29, 2009 6:46 pm)

Please read the guidelines, introduce one topic per thread. Also, there are threads for each of your topics if you care to reply to them. Regardless, raising questions is welcomed, but do it one at a time.

Thanks, Moderator1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

sqeecoo
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby sqeecoo » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri May 29, 2009 7:45 pm)

Well yes, I do know that most of the specific issues have been addressed. Except the Jaeger report perhaps, I've read the topic you have on that, and have not found it very conclusive.

Anyway, I'm asking a single "meta-question" here: how much evidence is it reasonable to expect, or, in other words, is it reasonable to expect to find a single solid piece of evidence, as the revisionists require?
I do understand that holes can be poked in most or all of the evidence offered for the existence of gas chambers. I'm asking whether it is reasonable to expect anything else of a historical theory, especially one dealing with a period as chaotic and inherently prone to bias as WWII. I agree that the principle of the "convergence" of evidence is silly, but is the requirement of solid, indubitable proof also unreasonable?

Let me put it this way. Let's say we are starting our research on the Holocaust. It's easy to set a standard of conclusive proof that is perhaps impossible to satisfy. My question is, given that the Holocaust is true, but also that the war has destroyed a lot of evidence and traumatized and prejudiced all the witnesses, what kind of evidence is it reasonable to expect to find?
Last edited by sqeecoo on Sat May 30, 2009 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kiwichap
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:54 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby Kiwichap » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat May 30, 2009 1:57 am)

sqeecoo" However, what about forensic evidence? How much could we realistically find?

The thing is sqeecoo, there is no forensic evidence, that's the problem. Where there should be forensic evidence, there isn't. The only shot we had at finding forensic evidence was finding a bar of soap or a tattooed lampshade. The liars, realizing this, (that they were caught out lying) quickly shot their own ass fulla holes. (who are the deniers now?) Now all we have is the fable. There is no evidence. There never was.

Point being. Jews make an accusation against the Germans. It's up to them to prove their case. Not me to run round wasting my time chasing their tail trying to disprove a pack of lies. I'm still waiting for them to present some evidence which I can look at without worrying whether I'm gonna be carted of to Alcatraz, for examining it. Ya get the picture?

My mate Geoffrey reckons he knows the truth but he's just too scared to say so. Yeah, whats the point of knowing the truth if it can't keep your ass outta jail he reckons? Who was that ratbag who said honesty is the best policy?

Humiliating the liars is easy, and amusing, and truly a buzz. But without a window to display it in, no light is gonna get out. Where truth is no defense, darkness reigns.
There was no holocaust.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

littlefieldjohn
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 4:27 pm

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby littlefieldjohn » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat May 30, 2009 12:24 pm)

I'm asking whether it is reasonable to expect anything else of a historical theory, especially one dealing with a period as chaotic and inherently prone to bias ..........

That is why, when the 16 miles of files or whatever at Bad Arolsen were first brought to light in 2007, accompanied by the 'media's" reminders that Nazis were extremely meticulous record-keepers, I am so curious as to what, whoever they may be, are waiting for to dive into those records and emerge with overwhelming and] conclusive proof of the mass gassings

KostasL
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:27 am

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby KostasL » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat May 30, 2009 3:17 pm)

sqeecoo wrote:Hi everyone.
A while ago, I stumbled upon Butz's "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" and thought to myself "heh, let me have a look at what this neo-nazi conspiracy crackpot says and have a laugh". However, I was surprised by the reasonable arguments and the complete lack of neo-nazism* I found. Many of these arguments I could not answer. Of course, I am no expert, but one would expect the evidence to be readily available on the net if it is truly "overwhelming". I could not find very much. Instead, I found a lot of rhetoric and fallacious arguments, and plenty of irrelevant photos and unclear or anonymous witness testimonies.

* I assumed Holocaust-deniers were neo-nazis, and I don't expect much from them since I think nazis are fanatical murderous bastards. However, if there were no gas chambers, they are no worse than the murderous bastards among the Soviets or British colonialists. I would still strongly disagree with neo-nazis (there seem to be plenty here, too :mrgreen: ) even if this were the case. On the other hand I don't use arguments ad hominem. I care about the quality of the argument, not the person making it.


I did find a good, comprehensive site, http://www.nizkor.org/, but it was not free from misleading rhetoric either. I'll have to study it in detail though, and read a few of the main pro-Holocaust books like Shermer's and Pressac's (not easy to get) before I'll make up my mind. This is too serious a topic to approach lightly. However, the fact that the alleged masses of evidence are not readily available, and the hot air and rhetoric I came across, not to mention the downright totalitarian suppression of critical thinking, is very worrying.

So much for my introduction. The question I want to ask is the following:
Revisionists point out that there is little or no forensic evidence, no documents, and plenty of holes in witness testimonies. However, how much evidence can we reasonably expect?
The lack of documents is a serious issue, but they could perhaps be destroyed. There are also some, like the Jaeger report, that do seem to indicate mass extermination. But this is certainly a major problem for the mainstream theory.

However, what about forensic evidence? How much could we realistically find? How easy is is to find mass graves? Obviously in places like Treblinka some MUST be found if the story is true, but what of, say, Auschwitz? Have attempts to find them been made? Can we expect them to succeed immediately? Once graves are found, is it possible to determine how the people died and who they were? Is it reasonable to request solid forensic proof here?
Regarding forensic evidence on the remains of the alleged gas chambers, I don't know enough about the science to be able to tell what is reasonable to expect.

Regarding witnesses, can we reasonably expect that there are witnesses who went through this whole horrible traumatic experience (even for the Nazis, at least at the trial) and are still able to give a testimony with NO holes in it? Testimonies that describe in detail the workings of the gas chambers where they (allegedly) saw thousands of people die? Can we expect this much from them?


It's clear what conclusive evidence would be here. However, can we realistically expect to get it, even if the mainstream theory is true? Is it reasonable to expect that there is a single indubitable piece of evidence or witness despite the chaos and horror and destruction of the war and the Nazi regime?
Finally, is it reasonable to expect to have a theory on any aspect of the war in which no holes can be poked and no weaknesses identified, regardless of whether it is true? I personally have not found such a theory in my somewhat extensive reading on the military aspects of the war.

In other words, historical theories are conjectures, and in analyzing the chaos of war even more guesswork and uncertainty is involved. If gas chambers existed, what is the reasonable minimum of evidence we would expect to find, and would this satisfy the revisionist criteria for proof?


The truth is pretty much obvious. Embarrasing obvious i think. :wink:

I was being told a lot of lies in the past. I believed the holocaust story, at general. I begun to have questions though and I was annoyed by some weird things, exaggerations and obvious prejudice but i thought it was tolerable. I stayed loyal to the hoax though the truth was next to me, so close.
I remember myself wondering why did these Israelis act like Nazis, didn't they learn the ww2 "never again!" lesson ? Obviously this lesson was for people like me, not for them. :oops:

But then i found out that much of the things i was told are admitted lies, admitted long time ago. They admitted these lies very quietly because the people were not told about this. But fuck the people (as usual), what about the people accused the false accusations ? :oops:
And i found that there are lots more lies exposed and people are being persecuted for exposing these lies.
And i understood why there was so much noise, so many hollywood movies, so many articles in newspapers, so many books, etc., as if the holocaust was not 60 plus years old and was happening right now or was about to start.

When you realize that the Holocaust is a LIE, then all of a sudden, ALL your questions, ALL bizarre and strange things, dissapear and ALL things make sense, at last. :wink:

The holocaustians can only pretend that there is debate, controversy, doubt, etc. :lol:
There is nothing left for them. The war is over and they lost it. They have signed their unconditional surrender long time ago. :D

Only thing left is that people realize it.
:wink:

You are asking your own questions, while Bradley Smith asked one small simple question to "Holocaust authorities" running his challenge in university newspapers :

"Can you provide, with proof, the name of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz?" :?:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5513&hilit=bradley+smith+challenge&sid=6ad903909388b97cf7d790a8afd4484e#p36418
Last edited by KostasL on Sat May 30, 2009 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When you realize that the Holocaust is a LIE, then all of a sudden, ALL your questions, ALL bizarre and strange things, disappear, and ALL things make sense, at last.

Arsènelupin
Member
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:21 pm

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby Arsènelupin » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat May 30, 2009 3:40 pm)

"How much evidence is it reasonable to expect ?"
It's a good question. If the so called Shoah happened, it is reasonable Allied forces occuping defeated Germany after 1945 would have found for example :
- written documents at least quoting an order to put to death Jews, in mass number, on entire Germany surface, or just in such or such camp
- written documents establishing such building was build in order to be employed such as a homicidal gas chamber
- written documents establishing Zyklon B was ordered or forwarded in a criminal purpose
- in the famous mortuaries, archelogical traces of their homicidal using (amount of ferrocyanure in the bricks or cement)
- one corpse (just one) showing evidence of a criminal death because of Zyklon B

KostasL
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:27 am

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby KostasL » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat May 30, 2009 3:46 pm)

Arsènelupin wrote:"How much evidence is it reasonable to expect ?"

- one corpse (just one) showing evidence of a criminal death because of Zyklon B


Mercy me, one corpse is an "experiment" not a genocidal "holocaust". :oops:

But even so...the Allies and the Soviets with all the commitment they showed (almost mania) and all the efforts they made, using their vast resources, WERE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, except "confessions" and "eyewitnesses". :oops:

A single gassed corpse would be the most precious "holocaust cult" relic. :!:
When you realize that the Holocaust is a LIE, then all of a sudden, ALL your questions, ALL bizarre and strange things, disappear, and ALL things make sense, at last.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat May 30, 2009 6:13 pm)

Hi Squeeco,

I like the way you think and way of approaching this. Butz said if it happened there'd be a mountain of evidence. When you think how many 6 million is, and then think that sometimes a passage from Mein Kampf is offered as evidence--it's kind of absurd because Mein Kampf was written much earlier.

Forensic evidence for mass graves is also whether the soil was even disturbed 10 feet deep and for a football field in length.

On one hand believers say the Nazis destroyed the records, on the other hand, they went into Auschwitz and found a huge pile of human hair. You have to ask yourself, "why didn't they destroy the hair?" And how is it there was a bucket of human heads? Because the Soviets, in their footage of Auschwitz show a bucket of human heads.

The only advice I would say, is to not be "all over the place." Because you'll just jump from topic to topic. I would study one thing intensely, like the einsatgruppen killings. Just study that, till you make a decision. There's a 4-hour video on Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec, called "One Third of the Holocaust at http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com and that just focuses on 3 camps. Focusing on one piece is the way to go. Otherwise you can never get the necessary depth.

sqeecoo
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby sqeecoo » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat May 30, 2009 6:52 pm)

Kiwichap wrote:
The thing is sqeecoo, there is no forensic evidence, that's the problem.
Point being. Jews make an accusation against the Germans. It's up to them to prove their case. Not me to run round wasting my time chasing their tail trying to disprove a pack of lies. I'm still waiting for them to present some evidence which I can look at without worrying whether I'm gonna be carted of to Alcatraz, for examining it. Ya get the picture?


I agree completely. But that does not really answer my question: what kind of forensic proof would we expect to find? There are mass graves - maybe from starvation, overwork, disease, maybe not. The question is, can this be ascertained? Is it possible to tell from the remains?

KostasL wrote:You are asking your own questions, while Bradley Smith asked one small simple question to "Holocaust authorities" running his challenge in university newspapers :

"Can you provide, with proof, the name of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz?" :?:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.ph ... 84e#p36418


Right, that's exactly what I am taking issue with. Are our forensic and identification techniques really good enough to satisfy this criterion, given the chaos, death and destruction of the war, even if gas chambers existed?

Arsènelupin wrote:"How much evidence is it reasonable to expect ?"
It's a good question. If the so called Shoah happened, it is reasonable Allied forces occuping defeated Germany after 1945 would have found for example :
- written documents at least quoting an order to put to death Jews, in mass number, on entire Germany surface, or just in such or such camp
- written documents establishing such building was build in order to be employed such as a homicidal gas chamber
- written documents establishing Zyklon B was ordered or forwarded in a criminal purpose
- in the famous mortuaries, archelogical traces of their homicidal using (amount of ferrocyanure in the bricks or cement)
- one corpse (just one) showing evidence of a criminal death because of Zyklon B


I agree that it would be great if we had any of this. But it seems more like a demand for conclusive evidence than a realistic estimate of what we would expect to find before we start our research. I am not sure that it is necessary that such proof exists, even if the story is true (with the possible exception of ferrocyanure in the bricks or cement). It is necessary to find such proof in order to prove the accusations against the Germans, but it might not be necessary for such proof to exist, even if the accusations are true. Obviously, if we can't find any of it, this means that the Holocaust is not proven, but I am asking whether it means that it is disproven.

It seems to me that it is possible that the fairest evaluation of the evidence might be that it is inconclusive from the standpoint of a murder trial, and that we have to make up our mind whether to believe the witnesses and the overall story based on pretty much nothing conclusive. This would be highly unsatisfactory, of course, but I am asking whether the revisionists are setting the bar unrealistically high.


Let me try an example. Let's say we want to find out who Mozart's father was (I have no idea whether this can really be done, it's a hypothetical example). Now, it's easy to say "give me a single unambiguous document and some forensic evidence - the testimonies are somewhat contradictory and biased, and worthless if they can't be corroborated by physical evidence". But this might be an unreasonable demand - even if X is really Mozart's father as the mainstream theory says, we can't realistically expect to find such evidence. Since it is not clear where he is buried (again, hypothetically), and all we have is ambiguous and somewhat contradictory reports from the period, any theory has to remain a conjecture, and can't satisfy the demand above even if the theory is true. Of course, this means we can't prove the theory satisfactorily in a court of law, but this does not mean that the theory is wrong.

-------------------------------------

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:Hi Squeeco,

I like the way you think and way of approaching this.


Thanks :P

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:Butz said if it happened there'd be a mountain of evidence. When you think how many 6 million is, and then think that sometimes a passage from Mein Kampf is offered as evidence--it's kind of absurd because Mein Kampf was written much earlier.

Forensic evidence for mass graves is also whether the soil was even disturbed 10 feet deep and for a football field in length.

On one hand believers say the Nazis destroyed the records, on the other hand, they went into Auschwitz and found a huge pile of human hair. You have to ask yourself, "why didn't they destroy the hair?" And how is it there was a bucket of human heads? Because the Soviets, in their footage of Auschwitz show a bucket of human heads.


I agree that a lot of the "evidence" being presented is just ridiculous. This is what made me suspect something might be wrong in the first place. But given the chaos of war and the missing persons, destruction, and random corpses all over the place, I am not sure we should expect to find anything other than inconclusive, dubious evidence of anything (look at the issue of Rommel's death, for instance).

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:Focusing on one piece is the way to go. Otherwise you can never get the necessary depth.


I agree with this too. But I'm trying to estimate how much evidence I'd realistically expect to find before I start serious research.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun May 31, 2009 1:52 am)

But I'm trying to estimate how much evidence I'd realistically expect to find before I start serious research.


Well, I'd focus on the pits. Burial pits. And then ask yourself that question. And after that, start researching. But to give you an idea of what it could look like, consider what the Nazis did when they found NKVD killings at Katyn and Vinnitsa:
As is well known, on April 13, 1943, in the forest of Katyn not far from
Smolensk, the Germans, following directions from the local populace, found
seven mass graves with a total of 4,143 bodies of Polish officers who had been
shot. Between April and June, these were examined by a commission, which
included medical doctors from 12 European nations, and further by a commis-
sion of the Polish Red Cross and by American, British, and Canadian officers
who were prisoners of war. The Germans published an extraordinarily well-
documented official dossier afterwards, which contained all the forensic re-
sults of the investigation, 80 photographs, and the names of the victims identi-
fied.613
The massacre of Vinnitsa (Ukraine) was uncovered by the Germans at the
beginning of June 1943. At three different discovery sites, a total of 97 mass
graves, they found the mortal remains of 9,432 Ukrainians who had been mur-
dered by the Soviets. No fewer than 14 commissions, 6 foreign ones among
them, examined the graves in the period from June 24 to August 25. In this case, too, the Germans publicized the results of the examinations in a substan-
tial documentation of 282 pages with 151 images, forensic expert opinions as
well as names of the victims.

Treblinka. By Mattogno and Graf, page 217 and 218.

bridgebuilder
Member
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:22 am
Location: Australia

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby bridgebuilder » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun May 31, 2009 4:24 am)

" ... the Soviets, in their footage of Auschwitz show a bucket of human heads."

I was not aware that the Soviets displayed film of a bucket of human heads. Is the film still extant? One need have no doubt that the heads came straight from NKVD torture chambers and might even be of Germans. Still, it would be interesting to see the film. Are they heads or skulls? A good deal of what was claimed about Auschwitz in 1945 (mass electrocution, the victims of which were fed onto a conveyor belt and their bodies industrially pulverized) is just not plausible in the cold light of day, 60 years after the event. It is quite possible - indeed, very likely - that the NKVD film crews over-reached themselves in 1945 in the interest of stirring the passions with war-atrocity propaganda and diverting attention from their own horrific crimes. I would be very interested in examination of this film, with commentary from this forum's participants as to its plausibility. The shrunken human heads and tattooed lamp-shades have been safely consigned to the rubbish bin. I would think that the Soviet film would likewise contain glaring errors, more evident now than in the days when Stalin's despicable mass-murderers, tortureres and rapists were lionised in the western media as the forces of our glorious wartime ally.

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby ginger » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun May 31, 2009 1:42 pm)

It's a wonder that the Nazis were able to execute mass murder at Auschwitz so perfectly and yet leave someone like Henryk Tauber behind to tell in great detail how they committed their crimes.

MrNobody
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:54 am

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby MrNobody » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun May 31, 2009 2:40 pm)

sqeecoo wrote: But that does not really answer my question: what kind of forensic proof would we expect to find? There are mass graves - maybe from starvation, overwork, disease, maybe not. The question is, can this be ascertained? Is it possible to tell from the remains?


There are mass graves??

Show them.

There are no "mass graves", what we have instead are plots of ground which are claimed to be mass graves.

If they really were "mass graves" don't you think they would have opened one up & allowed a full forensic investigation to silence all us horrible little Anti-Semetic neo-nazi denying shits?

No

What we have instead are plots of ground capped with boulders, Lava stones, monoliths & even Concrete & Bitumen to stop any attempts at forensic investigation

And laws aimed at silencing so called "Denial & Deniers".

I hope that has helped answer at least one of your questions.
Wir brauchen eine Bewegung, die Deutschland endlich aus der Kontrolle der Kräfte von Versailles und Jalta befreit, die uns schon ein ganzes Jahrhundert lang von einer Kastastrophe in die andere stürzt.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

KostasL
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:27 am

Re: How much evidence can we expect?

Postby KostasL » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun May 31, 2009 5:42 pm)

sqeecoo wrote:However, what about forensic evidence? How much could we realistically find? How easy is is to find mass graves? Obviously in places like Treblinka some MUST be found if the story is true, but what of, say, Auschwitz?


Well, if i was arrested for having murdered 12 people (not 12 million) and i have buried them in my courtyard then the police should be able to find them. Especially when i confess that, and lots of "eyewitnesses" say so, too.

The funny is that almost 70 years passed since the alleged crimes and still people, ask questions like this. This is not ridiculous, this is a shame. :oops: And this is a shame not for people asking these questions and the revisionists but for the holocaust side.

The holocaust does not even welcome a debate, would it welcome forensic evidence ? :oops:

Now, ask yourself these questions again... :roll:


Have attempts to find them been made?


If one person is murdered, then you know, efforts are been made to find the body and all incriminating evidence.

You think that the Allies and the Soviets didn't try to find (and invent) all the Nazi incriminating stuff ? You think all these years wouldn't there be, such efforts? Especially in "well located" sites ? :oops:

The holocaust does not even welcome a debate, would it welcome a serious investigation ? :oops:

Now, ask yourself this question again... :roll:


Can we expect them to succeed immediately?


What do you mean immediately ? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Helloooo, ....this is 2009. :oops:

Can we really expect them to succeed ? To succeed in what ? What you consider a success, is their destruction. Why would they do that ? :oops:

Now, ask yourself this question again... :roll:

Once graves are found, is it possible to determine how the people died and who they were? Is it reasonable to request solid forensic proof here?


It is possible, almost sure, that valuable info can be gained from scientific research, if we are talking of pre-historic graves, hellenistic graves, medieval graves, napoleonic graves, WW1 graves, modern graves, etc.

The holocaust does not even welcome a debate, would it welcome a serious scientific research ? :oops:


Regarding witnesses, can we reasonably expect that there are witnesses who went through this whole horrible traumatic experience (even for the Nazis, at least at the trial) and are still able to give a testimony with NO holes in it? Testimonies that describe in detail the workings of the gas chambers where they (allegedly) saw thousands of people die? Can we expect this much from them?


No, we cannot expect much from tortured and blackmailed Nazis' confessions and same is for "eyewitnesses' testimonies. Especially when we know the pressure put on these people, both Nazis and eyewitnesses. Especially when these testimonies contradict each other. And especially when we know that there's lots of evidence, that contradict these confessions and testimonies. :oops:

The holocaust does not even welcome a debate, would it welcome serious testimonies' evaluation ? :oops:

Now, ask yourself this questions again... :roll:

It's clear what conclusive evidence would be here. However, can we realistically expect to get it, even if the mainstream theory is true? Is it reasonable to expect that there is a single indubitable piece of evidence or witness despite the chaos and horror and destruction of the war and the Nazi regime?


We can realistically expect to find realistic evidence of true events, that trully happened. 8)

The holocaust does not even welcome a debate because Truth welcomes it. :wink:
When you realize that the Holocaust is a LIE, then all of a sudden, ALL your questions, ALL bizarre and strange things, disappear, and ALL things make sense, at last.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests