SS confessions, why so useless?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
stefanob
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am

SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby stefanob » 9 years 5 months ago (Sun May 15, 2011 3:54 pm)

Hello,
after learning about the relevant number (a few tens) of SS mebers who admitted the existence of gas chambers, and not just the "famous ones" such as Hoess and Gerstein, I read an interesting related thread here on teh forum.
As sometimes still happens, even after a few years of readings of revisionist literature, I thought it was a hard mouthful to chew, because the confessions were made freely and never recanted. Then, as usual, after evaluating the circumstances of those confessions, all similar to Hoess' one, I simply realized hat, as always, every new alleged proof of the gas chambers and holocaust in general, always turns against its creators. Inf act, if there were full disclosures from many SS men, it should have been possible to lacate a LOT of forensic evidences! We should know how the chambers worked, we should be able to tell if Crematorium I ever was a gas chamber. They could have located bodies of gassed people, and if they had been incinerated, they could have found the ashes! With all those detailed informations from the murderers themselves, no shadows should be left in the account of the holocaust. They could have collected decisive evidences (the ones they always pretend to have) and there would be no revisionism at all. But they just got their confessions and dismissed the witnesses, mostly to the hangman.

This clearly demonstrates to me that the SS personnel just said "yes we did it" but provided no real informations about who, when, where and how, simply because they never saw ANY gas chamber.
I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive errors and weird syntax

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby Hans » 9 years 5 months ago (Mon May 16, 2011 2:08 am)

stefanob wrote:Hello,
after learning about the relevant number (a few tens) of SS mebers who admitted the existence of gas chambers, and not just the "famous ones" such as Hoess and Gerstein, I read an interesting related thread here on teh forum.
As sometimes still happens, even after a few years of readings of revisionist literature, I thought it was a hard mouthful to chew, because the confessions were made freely and never recanted. Then, as usual, after evaluating the circumstances of those confessions, all similar to Hoess' one, I simply realized hat, as always, every new alleged proof of the gas chambers and holocaust in general, always turns against its creators. Inf act, if there were full disclosures from many SS men, it should have been possible to lacate a LOT of forensic evidences! We should know how the chambers worked, we should be able to tell if Crematorium I ever was a gas chamber. They could have located bodies of gassed people, and if they had been incinerated, they could have found the ashes! With all those detailed informations from the murderers themselves, no shadows should be left in the account of the holocaust. They could have collected decisive evidences (the ones they always pretend to have) and there would be no revisionism at all. But they just got their confessions and dismissed the witnesses, mostly to the hangman.

This clearly demonstrates to me that the SS personnel just said "yes we did it" but provided no real informations about who, when, where and how, simply because they never saw ANY gas chamber.



There is much simpler and obvious reasons why a former SS man when testifiying in criminal investigations would not want providing too much details about the killing operation - because he would thereby admit he was involved in the operation, which is something people tend to aovid for moral reasons, because of burden the consience with this matter, because of not wanting to incriminate their former cormrades, but of course also in order not to incriminate themselves.

By the way, a lot of your "open questions" are already answered (also with the help of testimonies of former SS men). We know how the gas-chambers worked, we can tell if crematorium 1 ever was a gas-chamber, we know what happened to the bodies of gassed people (there were incinerated), we know what happened to the ashes. If this is what worried you all the time about the Holocaust, now you can have good nights again.

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby The Warden » 9 years 5 months ago (Mon May 16, 2011 2:45 am)

Hans wrote:
stefanob wrote:Hello,
after learning about the relevant number (a few tens) of SS mebers who admitted the existence of gas chambers, and not just the "famous ones" such as Hoess and Gerstein, I read an interesting related thread here on teh forum.
As sometimes still happens, even after a few years of readings of revisionist literature, I thought it was a hard mouthful to chew, because the confessions were made freely and never recanted. Then, as usual, after evaluating the circumstances of those confessions, all similar to Hoess' one, I simply realized hat, as always, every new alleged proof of the gas chambers and holocaust in general, always turns against its creators. Inf act, if there were full disclosures from many SS men, it should have been possible to lacate a LOT of forensic evidences! We should know how the chambers worked, we should be able to tell if Crematorium I ever was a gas chamber. They could have located bodies of gassed people, and if they had been incinerated, they could have found the ashes! With all those detailed informations from the murderers themselves, no shadows should be left in the account of the holocaust. They could have collected decisive evidences (the ones they always pretend to have) and there would be no revisionism at all. But they just got their confessions and dismissed the witnesses, mostly to the hangman.

This clearly demonstrates to me that the SS personnel just said "yes we did it" but provided no real informations about who, when, where and how, simply because they never saw ANY gas chamber.



There is much simpler and obvious reasons why a former SS man when testifiying in criminal investigations would not want providing too much details about the killing operation - because he would thereby admit he was involved in the operation, which is something people tend to aovid for moral reasons, because of burden the consience with this matter, because of not wanting to incriminate their former cormrades, but of course also in order not to incriminate themselves.


I see:
So according to Hans, the "witnesses" testified to murdering millions directly or indirectly, but they couldn't testify as to how the operations worked... because they didn't want to incriminate themselves?

Bwahahahahaha.

Then Hans goes on to declare he and the rest of the Believers know how the operations worked from... The same testimonies!

Hans wrote:By the way, a lot of your "open questions" are already answered (also with the help of testimonies of former SS men). We know how the gas-chambers worked, we can tell if crematorium 1 ever was a gas-chamber, we know what happened to the bodies of gassed people (there were incinerated), we know what happened to the ashes. If this is what worried you all the time about the Holocaust, now you can have good nights again.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby Hans » 9 years 5 months ago (Mon May 16, 2011 8:09 am)


I see:
So according to Hans, the "witnesses" testified to murdering millions directly or indirectly, but they couldn't testify as to how the operations worked... because they didn't want to incriminate themselves?


We can classify the accounts of former SS personell into four groups, (1) those does who denied that any mass killing took place, (2) those who said there didn't know about the mass killings, (3) those who acknowledge that mass killings took place and (4) those who describe mass killings or mass killing sites in detail.

If we only focus on those who could have been in the position to know something, then I estimate from my reading that the distribution looks like this, the majority of testimonies fall in group (3), then (4) and (2) and the smallest is (1).

The group (3) consists of two sub-categories, (a) those who really didn't much details, and (b) those who know much details but avoided to reveal. In my previous post I provided explanation for the existence of group (3b). Note that my explanation consists of four points and not of one as you suggest.

Group (4) witnesses are for instance people like Höss, Broad, Morgan, Gerstein, Fuchs, Böck, Erber.

Now the interesting thing with this distribution is that you it is pretty much what you would expect if the mass killings were true, and pretty much the exact opposite of what we would expect if there were not true.

If there were no mass killings, we would expect most testimonies in group (1) rejecting that any mass killing did took place, then group (2), then with large distant group (3) and finally very small or even empty group (4).

This alone indicates there is something seriously fishy with Revisionism. If there really were no mass killings and no mass gassing, then the actual amount of accounts in category (1) rejecting the existence of mass killings and gassings is ridiculously low, especially in West-German criminal proceedings. Of course, this is exactly one reason why Revisionists cannot make their case even after decades of activity.


Then Hans goes on to declare he and the rest of the Believers know how the operations worked from... The same testimonies!


Actually this is from different testimonies, of course, namely those SS personell of group 4 and prisoners working at the killing sites.

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby The Warden » 9 years 5 months ago (Mon May 16, 2011 8:51 am)

Hans wrote:

I see:
So according to Hans, the "witnesses" testified to murdering millions directly or indirectly, but they couldn't testify as to how the operations worked... because they didn't want to incriminate themselves?


We can classify the accounts of former SS personell into four groups, (1) those does who denied that any mass killing took place, (2) those who said there didn't know about the mass killings, (3) those who acknowledge that mass killings took place and (4) those who describe mass killings or mass killing sites in detail.

If we only focus on those who could have been in the position to know something, then I estimate from my reading that the distribution looks like this, the majority of testimonies fall in group (3), then (4) and (2) and the smallest is (1).

The group (3) consists of two sub-categories, (a) those who really didn't much details, and (b) those who know much details but avoided to reveal. In my previous post I provided explanation for the existence of group (3b). Note that my explanation consists of four points and not of one as you suggest.

Group (4) witnesses are for instance people like Höss, Broad, Morgan, Gerstein, Fuchs, Böck, Erber.

Now the interesting thing with this distribution is that you it is pretty much what you would expect if the mass killings were true, and pretty much the exact opposite of what we would expect if there were not true.

If there were no mass killings, we would expect most testimonies in group (1) rejecting that any mass killing did took place, then group (2), then with large distant group (3) and finally very small or even empty group (4).

This alone indicates there is something seriously fishy with Revisionism. If there really were no mass killings and no mass gassing, then the actual amount of accounts in category (1) rejecting the existence of mass killings and gassings is ridiculously low, especially in West-German criminal proceedings. Of course, this is exactly one reason why Revisionists cannot make their case even after decades of activity.


Then Hans goes on to declare he and the rest of the Believers know how the operations worked from... The same testimonies!


Actually this is from different testimonies, of course, namely those SS personell of group 4 and prisoners working at the killing sites.


Or it could simply mean there were no mass gassings...
Putting group 1 and group 2 at the top of the list for most reliable.
Especially considering those two groups contain the most testimonies.

You can put them into 1000 groups if you like, the majority of them have no clue how it operated.
That's the problem with things that don't exist, there's no real way to get the story straight, which is clearly shown by the mismatched few who claim they do know.

Once again the Holocaust shows it's amazing resemblance to religion.
A convergence of thoughts and tales based on hope and fear which will never be verified.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c

stefanob
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby stefanob » 9 years 5 months ago (Mon May 16, 2011 6:11 pm)

Hans wrote:By the way, a lot of your "open questions" are already answered (also with the help of testimonies of former SS men). We know how the gas-chambers worked, we can tell if crematorium 1 ever was a gas-chamber, we know what happened to the bodies of gassed people (there were incinerated), we know what happened to the ashes. If this is what worried you all the time about the Holocaust, now you can have good nights again.


WOW, I haven't had the impression that any of these statements are true so far, after reading WWII/Holocaust related material for the past years, I must have been absent minded. Please direct me where I can see piles of human ashes, I must have overlooked that. Hans, I'm a beginner to this forum, not an idiot.

Anyway, my point was that NOBODY from the prosecution seemed ever interested to seek material evidences from the confessions. They didn't ask for details. They didn't even try to take anybody on the supposed crime scenes to ask clarifcations, wouldn't that be interesting? But they didn't. They just put them to death.


[Please forgive an offtopic side-note: how do I contact the moderators to ask questions I can't find in the FAQ? Don't seem to be able to do this...]
I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive errors and weird syntax

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby Hannover » 9 years 5 months ago (Mon May 16, 2011 6:55 pm)

Remember, thousands of people 'confessed' and were 'eyewitnesses' to witchcraft and sorcery.

It's not very hard to get 'confessions when there is no limit as to the methods used, see:
'getting the desired 'confession'....via torture'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1121

some examples:
U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
" The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history."

- Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49


American judge, van Roden:
"Statements admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses"


Judge van Roden's allegation of torture to gain "confessions" is confirmed by Texas Supreme Court Judge, Gordon Simpson. He confirmed that savage beatings, smashing of testicles, and months of solitary confinement occurred.
- Congressional Record, appendix. v. 95,sec.12, 3/10/49.

and:
Lt. Col. Ellis and Lt Perl of the Prosectution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain competant evidence. Perl told the court, "We had a tough case to crack and we had to use persuasive methods."

He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods included various "expedients, including some violence and mock trials." He further told the court that the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods.

The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and, five months. They were confined between four walls, with no windows, and no opportunity of exercise. Two meals a day were shoved in to them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed to talk to anyone. They had no communication with their families or any minister or priest during that time.

This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants.

Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators. Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including violence and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence thus received.

One 18 year old defendant, after a series of beatings. was writing a statement being dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, the boy was locked up for the night. In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering. "I will not utter another lie." When the jailer came in later to get him to finish his false statement, he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead. However the statement that the German had hanged himself to escape signing was offered and received in evidence in the trial of the others.

Sometimes a prisoner who refused to sign was led into a dimly lit room, where a group of civilian investigators, wearing U. S. Army uniforms. were seated around a black table with a crucifix in the center and two candles burning, one on each aide. "You will now have your American trial," the defendant was told. The sham court passed a sham sentence of death. Then the accused was told, "You will hang in a few days, as soon as the general approves this sentence: but in the meantime sign this confession and we can get you acquitted." Some still wouldn't sign. We were shocked by the crucifix being used so mockingly.

In another case, a bogus Catholic priest (actually an investigator) entered the cell of one of the defendants, heard his confession, gave him absolution, and then gave him a little friendly tip:
Sign whatever the investigators ask you to sign. It will get you your freedom. Even though it's false, I can give you absolution now in advance for the lie you'd tell.

- E. L. Van Roden, "American Atrocities in Germany", The Progressive. February 1949, p. 21f.


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

User avatar
Webmaster
Administration
Administration
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 10:58 pm
Contact:

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby Webmaster » 9 years 5 months ago (Mon May 16, 2011 8:07 pm)

stefanob wrote:[Please forgive an offtopic side-note: how do I contact the moderators to ask questions I can't find in the FAQ? Don't seem to be able to do this...]

There is no FAQ, but here is our guidelines:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=358

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby Hans » 9 years 5 months ago (Tue May 17, 2011 11:53 am)

stefanob wrote:
Hans wrote:By the way, a lot of your "open questions" are already answered (also with the help of testimonies of former SS men). We know how the gas-chambers worked, we can tell if crematorium 1 ever was a gas-chamber, we know what happened to the bodies of gassed people (there were incinerated), we know what happened to the ashes. If this is what worried you all the time about the Holocaust, now you can have good nights again.


WOW, I haven't had the impression that any of these statements are true so far, after reading WWII/Holocaust related material for the past years, I must have been absent minded.


Don't be so hard with yourself, maybe you were just reading the wrong stuff.

Please direct me where I can see piles of human ashes, I must have overlooked that.


Indeed you must have overlooked that for instance for Auschwitz there was no pile of ash in the first place since according to multiple testimonies the ash was usually transported away and thrown into rivers

Anyway, my point was that NOBODY from the prosecution seemed ever interested to seek material evidences from the confessions. They didn't ask for details. They didn't even try to take anybody on the supposed crime scenes to ask clarifcations, wouldn't that be interesting? But they didn't. They just put them to death.

How do you know, did you study the records from the criminal investigations? Which ones?

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby Hans » 9 years 5 months ago (Tue May 17, 2011 12:12 pm)

Hannover wrote:Remember, thousands of people 'confessed' and were 'eyewitnesses' to witchcraft and sorcery.

It's not very hard to get 'confessions when there is no limit as to the methods used, see:
'getting the desired 'confession'....via torture'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1121

some examples:
U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
" The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history."

- Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49


American judge, van Roden:
"Statements admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses"


Judge van Roden's allegation of torture to gain "confessions" is confirmed by Texas Supreme Court Judge, Gordon Simpson. He confirmed that savage beatings, smashing of testicles, and months of solitary confinement occurred.
- Congressional Record, appendix. v. 95,sec.12, 3/10/49.

and:
Lt. Col. Ellis and Lt Perl of the Prosectution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain competant evidence. Perl told the court, "We had a tough case to crack and we had to use persuasive methods."

He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods included various "expedients, including some violence and mock trials." He further told the court that the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods.

The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and, five months. They were confined between four walls, with no windows, and no opportunity of exercise. Two meals a day were shoved in to them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed to talk to anyone. They had no communication with their families or any minister or priest during that time.

This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants.

Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators. Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including violence and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence thus received.

One 18 year old defendant, after a series of beatings. was writing a statement being dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, the boy was locked up for the night. In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering. "I will not utter another lie." When the jailer came in later to get him to finish his false statement, he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead. However the statement that the German had hanged himself to escape signing was offered and received in evidence in the trial of the others.

Sometimes a prisoner who refused to sign was led into a dimly lit room, where a group of civilian investigators, wearing U. S. Army uniforms. were seated around a black table with a crucifix in the center and two candles burning, one on each aide. "You will now have your American trial," the defendant was told. The sham court passed a sham sentence of death. Then the accused was told, "You will hang in a few days, as soon as the general approves this sentence: but in the meantime sign this confession and we can get you acquitted." Some still wouldn't sign. We were shocked by the crucifix being used so mockingly.

In another case, a bogus Catholic priest (actually an investigator) entered the cell of one of the defendants, heard his confession, gave him absolution, and then gave him a little friendly tip:
Sign whatever the investigators ask you to sign. It will get you your freedom. Even though it's false, I can give you absolution now in advance for the lie you'd tell.

- E. L. Van Roden, "American Atrocities in Germany", The Progressive. February 1949, p. 21f.


- Hannover




I think your posting is priceless.

You are merely citing statements even hearsay, which are as the rule rejected by Revisionism. But you show no material evidence that anybody was tortured into a confession. For all we know, all those guys you cite are lying because they have an axe to grind, are insane or secret Nazis or were paid by them or whatever.

Just think about it for the moment. You spend so much time and energy to convince that testimonies are unreliable, but you need to rely on them to support your case. This is like the cat who bites her own tail!

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby Hannover » 9 years 5 months ago (Tue May 17, 2011 12:18 pm)

Hans says:
You are merely citing statements even hearsay, which are as the rule rejected by Revisionism. But you show no material evidence that anybody was tortured into a confession. For all we know, all those guys you cite are lying because they have an axe to grind, are insane or secret Nazis or were paid by them or whatever.

Just think about it for the moment. You spend so much time and energy to convince that testimonies are unreliable, but you need to rely on them to support your case. This is like the cat who bites her own tail!

I cited two American judges and a US Congressman; all 'secret Nazis with axes to grind', eh Hans? You're really getting desperate.

To the new reader, this is a classic example of what passes for debate by Believers ... American officials who acknowledge torture of Germans after the war, all 'Nazis with axes to grind'. Hilarious.

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

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby Hannover » 9 years 5 months ago (Tue May 17, 2011 12:33 pm)

Hans says:
Indeed you must have overlooked that for instance for Auschwitz there was no pile of ash in the first place since according to multiple testimonies the ash was usually transported away and thrown into rivers

Please show us the 'testimony' and then show us the cross examination.
And you did say "usually", so where is this claimed 'ash'?

stafanob said:
Anyway, my point was that NOBODY from the prosecution seemed ever interested to seek material evidences from the confessions. They didn't ask for details. They didn't even try to take anybody on the supposed crime scenes to ask clarifcations, wouldn't that be interesting? But they didn't. They just put them to death.

To which Hans replied:
How do you know, did you study the records from the criminal investigations? Which ones?

Hans, please show us the "criminal investigations" where material evidence for the alleged 'gas chambers' was presented. Show us what was presented.
Oops, I forgot for a moment, the Soviet communists did present a detailed forensic report at Nuremberg 'proving' that Jews were steamed to death in steam chambers. Yep, they sure did. Perhaps Hans can do better than that. I doubt it, however.

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

User avatar
Moderator3
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:01 am

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby Moderator3 » 9 years 5 months ago (Tue May 17, 2011 3:36 pm)

Hans,
You're post that amounted to, 'I'm right, you're wrong', has been deleted, it is not debate. In fact, you have been challenged to produce what you claim exists. If your statements like 'so & so said _______' are factual, then you should relish the opportunity of rebuttal. Instead, we're getting 'I'm right, your wrong', which is certain to cause deletions. Why not take the opportunity presented to you and respond as requested? Dodging is not permitted at this forum. If you do, you must leave the thread. Please review our stated guidelines. We appreciate you're being here, but we do expect genuine debate.
Thanks.

stefanob
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby stefanob » 9 years 5 months ago (Tue May 17, 2011 3:56 pm)

Hans wrote:Indeed you must have overlooked that for instance for Auschwitz there was no pile of ash in the first place since according to multiple testimonies the ash was usually transported away and thrown into rivers


I have read a lot of testimonies and confessions, but I can't recall this fact of ashes being dumped into rivers. I hope they are not the same old Wiesel/Vrba/Muller, etc. I'm sincerely interested in reading these testimonies. Are they available online? Can you direct me, please?
I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive errors and weird syntax

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: SS confessions, why so useless?

Postby The Warden » 9 years 5 months ago (Tue May 17, 2011 6:13 pm)

Hans wrote:Just think about it for the moment. You spend so much time and energy to convince that testimonies are unreliable, but you need to rely on them to support your case. This is like the cat who bites her own tail!


I fail to see how Believer logic is any different in its inverse form.
You spend all your time using testimonies to make your argument, and when testimonies are used as rebuttal, you dismiss them.

You tell me... What's the difference?

Image
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Archie, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 12 guests