Embarrassed Tim O'Neill Attempts a Response on Torture to Get 'Confessions'

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Embarrassed Tim O'Neill Attempts a Response on Torture to Get 'Confessions'

Postby Hannover » 4 years 8 months ago (Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:46 pm)

Tim O'Neil, reeling under the utter embarrassment of being made a fool of here:
quora.com / Tim O'Neill: Hoess 'confessions' are proof
and here:
quora.com / Tim O'Neill: Nazis never denied 'holocaust'
resorts to a hilarious 'I can't hear you' response'. Notice how he completely & desperately dodges the facts presented to him and uses false strawman argument after fake strawman argument.

source: http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most- ... m-ONeill-1
EDIT: After over 1000 upvotes and 40+ comments, there are a couple of further points I think are worth making.

(i) Several people, both in the comments and in other answers have leapt on the fact that Höss was beaten when he was first arrested and, to varying degrees, tried to argue this somehow invalidates his entire testimony. This is the standard way that Deniers brush aside all of Höss' evidence and a few of those using it here have the stench of Denier around their comments.

Others, however, simply don't seem to have thought their comments through. When Höss was captured his captors already knew who he was. His wife also confirmed it, but he continued to maintain he was a farmer called Lang (knowing that admitting to being Rudolf Höss was tantamount to a death sentence). This was when some of his captors beat him up until he admitted who he was.

But no-one then continued to beat him up for the next YEAR, during which he willingly signed affidavits about what he'd done, testified at length at Nuremberg and even wrote a detailed memoir detailing his life, making excuses for his actions and explaining what he did at Auschwitz in detail. On the contrary, he expressed surprise at how well he was treated.

So to pretend all of his months and months of detailed testimony were somehow precipitated by one beating when he was captured and that he went to the gallows sticking to a story that was, somehow, an elaborate lie is clearly absurd. It's made doubly absurd by the fact that everything he said was confirmed by vast documentation, by multiple eye-witnesses including other Nazis of varying rank, by photographs, and by archaeology. It takes a special kind of stupidity to argue this one beating means we can ignore all of Höss' evidence and he is just ONE of the hundreds of Nazis who detailed what happened. Again, not a single Nazi ever questioned, and thousands of them were, ever denied the Holocaust.

(ii). Several other answers note people they know who survived the Holocaust or who liberated concentration camps like Belsen and argue this is proof the Holocaust happened. The question is asking for a knockout punch against Deniers and, unfortunately, that evidence doesn't bother them much. They don't deny there were concentration camps, work camps, ghettos, mass deportations, mass shootings or even deaths into the hundreds of thousands from hunger and disease. They deny, however, that there was any order to exterminate millions, any organised program of systematic mass killing, any extermination camps, any gas chambers and any death toll in the multiple millions. So a grandmother with a camp tattoo or a great uncle who saw Buchenwald doesn't convince them.

This is why cutting through all their crap and confronting them with the fact that, without exception, every Nazi tried or questioned over the matter fully agreed it all happened leaves them with nowhere to go. All they can do is fall back on idiotic arguments like the one above about Höss' being roughed up, which simply exposes their position as the utter irrational stupidity it is.

Updated 24 Oct, 2013.
- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Embarrassed Tim O'Neill Attempts a Response on Torture to Get 'Confessions'

Postby Hannover » 4 years 8 months ago (Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:52 pm)

Here's a quick slap down of O'Neill's shoddy effort.

- It is well established that tortured prisoners will say anything that they think is necessary to stop the torture, whatever they the torturers want to hear, hence the reason that testimony made by those tortured is thrown out of legit courts of law. Hoess's "entire testimony" is necessarily fraudulent even when not being tortured at the moment. Anyone tortured would know the agony of torture would reappear if they uttered anything not desired by his captives. It's embarrassing that O'Neill needs to be told such obvious, legally established facts.

- Of course he maintained a pseudonym as long as possible, that's the point of a pseudonym, to avoid being caught. He had no reason to know if his wife gave up his real name, IF she really did. That entire point is irrelevant.
Hoess knew he would not get fair trial, hence his reason in avoiding capture. The shameful Show Trial nature of the Allies prosecutions is well known and confirmed by scholars who have researched the Nuremberg / post war proceedings, tons of debunking research on those at this forum.

- Hoess signed English language 'affidavits'? Right ... that he didn't understand and would certainly have been tortured further if he didn't sign anything demanded of him. Torture is certainly effective that way.
We know about his bizarre "memoirs' which have been thoroughly debunked, see again: quora.com / Tim O'Neill: Hoess 'confessions' are proof . Hoess was well treated? Laughable. If he doesn't say that guess what happens.
US troops held by N. Korean communists during the Korean War said they were well treated too, must have been true.

- How does O'Neill know there was only one beating? Did he read it in some communist 'report' which Hoess was forced to sign? Again, laughable. We've already shredded O'Neill in his ever so false claim that no Germans ever 'denied the absurd "holocaust". See again: quora.com / Tim O'Neill: Nazis never denied 'holocaust' for an endless list.
O'Neill conveniently forgets the impossible and absurd things that Hoess actually said in his ridiculous "confessions". See link given.

- Yes, grandmother "survivors" showing tattoos prove that the alleged 'holocaust' storyline is a lie. Buchenwald and the endless numbers of so called "survivors" necessarily prove that the alleged 'holocaust' storyline is a scam ... otherwise they would have been killed.

- BTW, O'Neill doesn't even know the storyline he's trying to defend. As stated by the otherwise creepy & sleazy Simon Wiesenthal, Buchenwald was not an "extermination" camp, alleged "extermination camps" supposedly only existed outside of Germany. Oops.

- Tim O'Neill has a consistency problem. According to O'Neill the thousands upon thousands of "eyewitnesses" and "confessions" to witchcraft and sorcery who gave sworn testimony in courts of law and who were supported by great minds and governments were definitely telling the truth.

- O'Neill doesn't seem to realize that people lie and perjure themselves on a routine basis. especially when there is monetary gain, social preferences & political power to be realized, combined with self importance / self aggrandizement by the aging.

- Notice that Tim O'Neill cannot show us verified excavations of all the enormous mass graves that are alleged, of course no one else can either. The 'confessions' of Hoess are necessarily a sham. Scientific application of forensics utterly demolishes the claims about him.

suggested reading:
Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz
plus:
Holocaust HOAX is based almost entirely on TORTURE!
just one excerpt:
"All but two of the Germans [on trial at Nuremberg], in the 139 cases that we investigated, had their testicles kicked in beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators:"
- 23.1.49, The Sunday Pictorial (quoted in For Those Who Cannot Speak (ref. 27), p.21.

"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..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."
- American judge, van Roden
Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Atigun
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Embarrassed Tim O'Neill Attempts a Response on Torture to Get 'Confessions'

Postby Atigun » 4 years 8 months ago (Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:22 pm)

Just to add to your post, Hannover, with current geophysical equipment such as GPR (ground penetrating radar) actual excavations are no longer necessary to locate and map the alleged mass graves. In the Ukraine, hobbyists using metal detectors are finding masses of WW II military gear. They have also found the skeletal remains of those whose bodies weren't recovered from the battlefields but no mass graves.

User avatar
Inquisitor
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:40 am

Re: Embarrassed Tim O'Neill Attempts a Response on Torture to Get 'Confessions'

Postby Inquisitor » 4 years 8 months ago (Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:19 pm)

Hannover wrote:Here's a quick slap down of O'Neill's shoddy effort.

- It is well established that tortured prisoners will say anything that they think is necessary to stop the torture, whatever they the torturers want to hear, hence the reason that testimony made by those tortured is thrown out of legit courts of law. Hoess's "entire testimony" is necessarily fraudulent even when not being tortured at the moment. Anyone tortured would know the agony of torture would reappear if they uttered anything not desired by his captives. It's embarrassing that O'Neill needs to be told such obvious, legally established facts.

...



This very reality is being played out of the world stage as we speak. The recently released report of American CIA torture has shown yet again that these tactics simply don't work as people will generally say ANYTHING when being tortured - no matter how outlandish or untruthful.

If someone were crushing my testicles I'm sure I'd admit to chopping off six million puppy heads, raping six-million nuns, burning down six-million orphanages...whatever they wanted to hear!

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Embarrassed Tim O'Neill Attempts a Response on Torture to Get 'Confessions'

Postby Kingfisher » 4 years 8 months ago (Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:51 am)

Inquisitor wrote:This very reality is being played out of the world stage as we speak. The recently released report of American CIA torture has shown yet again that these tactics simply don't work as people will generally say ANYTHING when being tortured - no matter how outlandish or untruthful.

If someone were crushing my testicles I'm sure I'd admit to chopping off six million puppy heads, raping six-million nuns, burning down six-million orphanages...whatever they wanted to hear!
Indeed. A major difficulty in making the Revisionist case is that people generally believe that we are the "good guys" and that we don't do things like that. Ever since 2003 or maybe 2001 it has been becoming increasingly clear that this is a delusion. The evidence that torture was widely used against Germans is clear and unambiguous but largely outside the public consciousness. We may currently have an opportunity to change that.

What has also emerged recently is that torture does not have to be extreme in order to be effective. If you control when or if someone eats, drinks, washes, has clothes or goes to the toilet, can expose them to extremes of temperature or light and darkness, isolate them, subject them to loud noise, narrow confinement and deprive them of sleep, and if you can threaten what might happen to their loved ones, you don't need to crush their testicles or rip out their fingernails.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2471
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Embarrassed Tim O'Neill Attempts a Response on Torture to Get 'Confessions'

Postby borjastick » 4 years 8 months ago (Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:12 am)

Several people, both in the comments and in other answers have leapt on the fact that Höss was beaten when he was first arrested and, to varying degrees, tried to argue this somehow invalidates his entire testimony. This is the standard way that Deniers brush aside all of Höss' evidence and a few of those using it here have the stench of Denier around their comments.
- From Mr O'Neill

Notice the word he uses 'beaten'. He does not use the word 'tortured' as this is too harsh and suggests clear brutal treatment, which would in most cases lead to a confession of anything to somehow stop the pain. Clearly Mr O'Neill never got a cricket ball square in the balls as a young teenage boy. He would know how crippling is the pain and how you would do anything to stop that pain.

He then states that any beatings Hoess received had no effect whatsoever on the content of his confession, and further that his confession should be taken on face value as a true representation of what he and his cohorts did. He seems to slip over the fact that the numbers Hoess confessed to are so way off in today's official understanding of Auschwitz, let alone the reality of what happened, which we have proved over and over with no mass graves and no 1.5m human remains to show did not happen either.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Embarrassed Tim O'Neill Attempts a Response on Torture to Get 'Confessions'

Postby hermod » 4 years 8 months ago (Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:00 pm)

Scoop! O'Neill's programme for 2015:

- 1,700 Witnesses Can't Lie! Alien Abductions undeniably proved! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction#Abductees)

- A New Witness Debunks the Infamous Lies of the Bigfoot Deniers!

- Temperance Lloyd and Mary Trembles Finally Confessed their Crimes! Witches Executed At Last! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bideford_witch_trial)

- "I've Had Sex with My Grandmother's Ghost During 20 Years." - The Most Probative Testimony Since Rudolf Hoess' One!

- Slice of Toast Bears face of Jesus! Physical Evidence of Christian Faith!

Image

- Convergence of Evidence - Face of Jesus Also Found on a Taco!

Image
http://www.buzzfeed.com/arielknutson/pe ... their-food

:lol:

-
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Embarrassed Tim O'Neill Attempts a Response on Torture to Get 'Confessions'

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Tue May 28, 2019 10:53 pm)

Others, however, simply don't seem to have thought their comments through. When Höss was captured his captors already knew who he was. His wife also confirmed it, but he continued to maintain he was a farmer called Lang (knowing that admitting to being Rudolf Höss was tantamount to a death sentence). This was when some of his captors beat him up until he admitted who he was


How stupid does O'Neill think people are? How stupid could HE be? Because you'd need to seriously suspend your disbelief to find this plausible in the slightest.

O'Neill seriously wants us to believe that Hoess allowed himself to be tortured over his NAME? Nobody on earth would subject themselves to the cruelty Hoess went through all to defend their own identity that the torturers already had in their possession. This makes the allies look more like bloodthirsty hounds when they're abusing a man for information they already have. Assuming O'Neill is telling the truth, which we have no reason to believe as he provides no source for this besides his own hearsay as he deflects crucial evidence.

It also begs more questions, why didn't they just confront Hoess about his identity and say they 'spoke' to his wife? Did they seriously not had any identification for a Rudolf Hoess to compare to any suspects? Anyway, this is all speculative bullshit in light of the facts themselves.

image.jpg


David Irving does a great job relaying the events in his book on Nuremberg.

By early 1946 British military police had finally located his wife and children in Schleswig-Holstein. They kept her under close surveillance and on March 11 forced her to reveal that her husband working as a farm labourer near Flensburg under the assumed name of ‘Franz Lang’. The posse found Höss at eleven P.M. that night, sleeping on a bunk in the farm’s slaughter-house. Two days earlier he had accidentally broken the phial of cyanide which he possessed; he was unable now to escape the consequences of his ill-starred career. To make doubly sure, he was immediately handcuffed and the cuffs were not removed for the next three weeks. He was dragged off his bunk, stripped naked, dumped onto one of the slaughter tables in the barn and manhandled until a medical officer accompanying the unit murmured, ‘Call them off unless you want to take back a corpse.’ As the car pulled into the British unit’s barracks at Heide, a blizzard was blowing. Höss was marched naked across the parade ground to a cell. For the next three days he was kept awake and repeatedly interrogated in German – he understood no English. Kenneth Jones, a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery, and two other soldiers were detailed to take turns to sit in his cell, armed with pick-axe handles to jab him every time he fell asleep. ‘After three days and nights without sleep,’ said Jones, ‘Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities. Höss himself wrote later, ‘At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip [his own] were too much for me.’ The ‘record’ was an eight-page text typed in German, which Höss signed in the early hours of March 15, having the presence of mind even now to add the time, ‘2:30 A.M.’ after the date. This confession, which subsequently came to be submitted to the Nuremberg tribunal as document NO–1210, had taken three days of torture, as his captor, Sergeant Bernard Clarke himself would describe, to obtain. It contained numerous perhaps deliberate errors, for instance the identification by Höss of an extermination camp at ‘Wolzek near Lublin,’ in addition to those at ‘Belzek’ and ‘Tublinka,’ all spelt thus. Wolzek has never existed; and the other two camps, Belzec and Treblinka, were not in existence at the time that Höss testified to. Having signed this document, Höss was transferred to British Intelligence regional headquarters at Minden-on-the-Weser. ‘There,’ he would later complain, ‘I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.’ His interlocutor here was Gerald Draper, a thirty-one-year-old lawyer who was chief interrogator of the British War Crimes Group. Höss’ confession would be listed as the high point of his career. This encounter was probably the source of a brief statement, set down in an English (i.e. not American or German) hand, which has survived and which reads in full as follows:

Statement made Voluntarily at [sic] Gaol
by Rudolf Hoess, former Commandant of
Auschwitz Concentration Camp on 16th day of March 1946.
– – – – –
I personally arranged on orders received from Himmler in May 1941
the gassing of two million persons between June/July 1941 and the end of
1943 during which time I was commandant of Auschwitz.
signed.

Höss signed this statement: ‘Rudolf Höss, SS-Ostubaf., fr. Kdt. v. Auschwitz–Birkenau’. He was also interrogated on March 20, 1946 at Minden, but that report is lost or not yet in the public domain. Shackled to another prisoner Höss was driven eleven days later to the American Zone in southern Germany, where he was housed in the Nuremberg jailhouse as a witness. His companion on this road journey was Moritz von Schirmeister, Dr Joseph Goebbels’ former press officer, for whose production Hans Fritzsche had applied as a defence witness. ‘Sure,’ Höss told Schirmeister before they were unshackled, ‘I signed to the effect that I had bumped off two and a half million people. But I could equally well have signed that it was five million. There are methods to get anybody to confess to anything regardless of whether it is true or not.’ Höss would describe the regime imposed on the jailhouse inmates by the American colonel Andrus as a ‘rest-cure’ compared to what he had been through in the British zone. -- Nuremberg: The Last Battle, David Irving, Focal Point Publications, pp. 349-351


O'Neill, as shown above is a liar and he is such because he pretends to be informed only to get information wrong.

According to O'Neill Hoess
expressed surprise at how well he was treated.
when in actuality
Höss would describe the regime imposed on the jailhouse inmates by the American colonel Andrus as a ‘rest-cure’ compared to what he had been through in the British zone.
He was making a comparison, something of a sick joke, and absolutely NOT as O'Neill describes and implies saying that the 'gracious' allies were being ever so kind in their hospitality, that's an absolutely twisted incomprehensible way to interpret it. Even if what O'Neill said was true, being beaten once disqualifies any 'well treatment'.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests