Why have revisionsts consistently lost their court cases?

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
Sannhet
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:12 pm
Location: USA

Why have revisionsts consistently lost their court cases?

Postby Sannhet » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:47 pm)

If the holocaust story is so full of holes; so full of classic wartime propaganda; and so obviously phony; then why have revisionists consistently lost their legal battles? Any person who approaches the issue with a fairly open mind and who looks a little deeper (past the museums, past the films, past the books, past the survivor compensations, past the accepted story in general) undoubtedly comes away with the idea that it was a hoax, so why have Houses of Justice across the world not exposed the holocaust?

Of course, it is fairly clear why the average person on the street blindly accepts the standard story (Remember that at this time last year 2/3rds of Americans thought that Iraq was responisble for the September 11th hijackings, a total and complete absurdity). But what is unclear (at least to me) is why, despite convincing evidence in favor of the revisionist views as well as the proven and re-proven scientific impossibilities of the orthodox holocaust story, have revisionists always lost legal battles? If revisionist findings were presented to an unbiased judge (as they have been many times to my knowledge), I cannot see how the compelling evidence can be ignored. Specifically with regard to Faurisson's case, why was the holocaust story not smashed to pieces when he presented his findings (and so many others as well :?)?

User avatar
TruthSeeker
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:45 pm
Location: Lebanon

Postby TruthSeeker » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:10 pm)

Sannhet,

Good questions raised there. This is my understanding of the situation:

If, and I repeat IF the judges aren't biased, then my theory to explain why revisionists lose their cases in the court would be the following:

1-Considering that revisionists can argue and disprove the claims of those who insist that the "holocaust" did take place does not necessarily imply that it did not take place, speaking from the point of view of the law.

2-Can it be proven that the "holocaust" did NOT take place? Or can we simply disprove the claims that it did take place (note here that I'm referring to claims, not disproving that the actual event took place).

3-You are innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove that something took place, you cannot claim/assume that it did. But that only works in theory. Going back to point #1, I am making the claim that there certainly is and will be bias in one way or another in these cases. Because the "holocaust" either took place or it didn't. And if you fail to prove that either one is right, then who wins the case? The one who has the bigger support and a louder voice. Because if you look at it that way, at least 80% of the world believe that the "holocaust" did take place or that claiming that jews were not exterminated implies anti-semetism. Certainly fear is a factor. It's not rare that those who go against the wave of majority are hurt or killed. An example of this would be Mr. Elie Hobeika, the Lebanese politician who was going to testify in the Hague against Ariel Sharon for the Sabra and Shatila massacres of 1982. So if it not willful bias, it's bias forced by fear. Fear of being harmed, or fear of losing society's approval. Think about what those judges would've been branded as if they had ruled in favor of the revisionists.

4-That many have avoided ruling against the "holocaust" because they want to avoid creating a state of chaos around the world (if they admit that one revisionist is correct, it proves that there IS something fabricated in the "holocaust" story, which is very problematic for them).

Just a few thoughts.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9763
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:35 pm)

Sannhet, welcome to The Revisionist Forum...TruthSeeker as well.

There's nothing odd about courts/judges making absurd rulings based upon illogical conclusions & 'beliefs' which must be accepted at all costs in spite of lack of evidence, while political agendas need to be attended....think witchcraft trials, think communist show trials for example.

Also, the courts essentially have taken 'judicial notice' of the standard 'holocaust' storyline, the fraud is accepted without ever having been proven...let's recall Nuremberg.

Article 19 of the Nuremberg Charter specified that:
"The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value."


Article 21 of the Nuremberg Charter stipulated:

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.


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

User avatar
TruthSeeker
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:45 pm
Location: Lebanon

Postby TruthSeeker » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:03 am)

shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge

A fine example of a mixture of argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad verecundiam, and appeal to anonymous authority fallacies.. :roll: :roll:

But a very similar case would be - the pope insisted that the earth was flat, and everyone else said the earth was flat because the pope had said so. Copernicus proved otherwise. So did Galileo. They were excommunicated.

So yeah, the "holocaust" took place because "eyewitnesses" said so. :D :lol:

Btw, I've been reading your previous posts Hannover, and like this one, they are very informative and to the point. :D

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:04 am)

:) To Sannhet:You must realize that there is much more going on behind a court ruling on this subject than a cut and dry fair trial.The judges and lawyers involved have to consider the obvious repercussions in sheading any fair or favorable lite on holocaust revisionist views,National Socialist Germany,Adolf Hitler,and any other related subjects,but especialy the holocaust.There are people(and this is a fact)that have a vested interest in the holocaust,and their influence is powerfull.Consider to yourself why you never see any media coverage of the holocaust presented in a critical view.I can understand the often used excuse of not insulting the dead,but to be quite honest,that sounds more convienant than scincere to me.The pressure on presenting the traditional version of the holocaust as apposed to any adverse evidence is very real,and very powerful.I think you can see my point.The pressure to make an influenced judgement does exist.After all,they have their careers,famillies,stature,and personal properties to consider.

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:11 am)

:? Just take a look at Gibson's THE PASSION.Not even Jesus stood a chance at a fair trial.Ironically enough,Judeo supremecists were a driving force behind this event as well.

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:26 am)

code yellow wrote::) To Sannhet:You must realize that there is much more going on behind a court ruling on this subject than a cut and dry fair trial.The judges and lawyers involved have to consider the obvious repercussions in sheading any fair or favorable lite on holocaust revisionist views,National Socialist Germany,Adolf Hitler,and any other related subjects,but especialy the holocaust.There are people(and this is a fact)that have a vested interest in the holocaust,and their influence is powerfull.Consider to yourself why you never see any media coverage of the holocaust presented in a critical view.I can understand the often used excuse of not insulting the dead,but to be quite honest,that sounds more convienant than scincere to me.The pressure on presenting the traditional version of the holocaust as apposed to any adverse evidence is very real,and very powerful.I think you can see my point.The pressure to make an influenced judgement does exist.After all,they have their careers,famillies,stature,and personal properties to consider.
:) To Sannhet;My apologies.Apon reading your first post over,I realize you are quite aware of what I just stated.

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:52 am)

To Sannhet;My apologies.Apon reading your first post over,I realize you are quite aware of what I just stated.[/quote] :? I have to correct myself once again.It was the second post by Truthseaker that acknowledged my point,not Sannhet.

User avatar
Sannhet
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:12 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sannhet » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:49 pm)

TruthSeeker: As you know, the Holocaust story has been solidly refuted by many great revisionists over the past few decades, so although they cannot "prove" that it did not happen, they can prove that it certainly didn't take place in the manner in which children are taught about it today. Now, let's say that I am convicted of robbery and jailed, but I appeal, and I present evidence which proves that I cannot have commited the crime as they say I did. In any country that has any respect for basic priciples of law, human rights, etc. I would be freed. I do not have to prove that I am 100% Innocent, just that I am "Not Guilty". The Holocaust seems to be held to a higher standard. Even with the numerous times that the case has been brought before a judge, the proverbial ship that is the Holocaust story is allowed to stay afloat despite it's hull resembling Swiss cheese. This is what I really don't understand. I guess that it really has become a religion...asking todays politicians and judges if the Holocaust happened or not is akin to asking the Pope if God exists or not. There is only one answer that the Pope can possibly give, and if he does not give that answer the world collapses

Hannover: The Nuremburg trials were clearly a sham, but modern courts and Houses of Justice are much more reasonable. yet, time and time again, when the the Holocaust has "gone on trial" in modern non-military courts, the revisionists always lose despite the facts being on their side.

While talking about this same topic today, a friend told me that the whole situation is similiar to Orwell's 1984, wherein the protagonist knows in his mind as 'fact' that 2+2=4, but 'the Party' continually bombards him with the false statement: 2+2=5. The Party does not rest until it has fully indoctrinated the man into truly believing, against all rules of logic that 2+2 really does equal 5.
Proponents of the Holocaust story want the people to believe that 2+2=5, which they have succeeded in doing. Sure, plenty of people have come forward saying that 2+2 cannot equal 5, but they are ignored as crackpots, neo-nazis, white supremacists, or God knows what else. Instead of being villified and the object of clumsy hatred as in the real world, heretics in Orwell's world (those who said 2+2=4, not 5) would have simply been arrested, tortured, 're-educated', then released, then killed anyway.

Code yellow: I think it was Nathan Goldman who said: "Since the Second World War, Jews have been treated with silk gloves. Without Auschwitz, there would be no Israel." Not to mention billions upon billions of dollars from Germany & the USA, and virtual immunity from criticism for the Jews. Nevertheless, despite the vested interest of many powerful people, the Holocaust should have been exposed by judges by now (they have certainly had ample oppurtunity!). This is what I do not understand.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9763
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:43 am)

Sannhet said:
Nevertheless, despite the vested interest of many powerful people, the Holocaust should have been exposed by judges by now (they have certainly had ample oppurtunity!). This is what I do not understand.

There were plenty explanations given, and Sannhet, you provided many; so what's the mystery? Propaganda and indoctrination are often effective, nothing new about that.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who believe they were abducted by aliens in UFOs. They want to believe it. One has to want to believe in the 'holocau$t' as alleged in order to accept the dumb nonsense that the absurd story states. Many people actually enjoy believing in the lurid, pornographic stories...it 'gets them off'.

If the alleged gas chambers and 6,000,000 is a lie (which they are) then the average person will ask way too many questions. Those in power do not want a 'history' which serves there interests questioned, and those believing in this rubbish don't want to admit the fact that they have been duped, and judges are no different.

It is important however, to realize that Revisionists were all 'Believers' at one time. Lies about the 'holocau$t' can be overcome just like the once accepted 'facts' of witches, sorcery, and the flat earth.

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

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:20 am)

As you know, the Holocaust story has been solidly refuted by many great revisionists over the past few decades, so although they cannot "prove" that it did not happen, they can prove that it certainly didn't take place in the manner in which children are taught about it today. I do not have to prove that I am 100% Innocent, just that I am "Not Guilty". :) Sannhet:As you are probably aware,there are other aspects involved in the holocaust,other types of crimes against humans, for instance shootings or the expulsions of Jews from Poland,that revisionists are perfectly willing to admit did indeed take place.Other aspects like lampshades and soap and the 6 million number that are clearly fabrications,but are still being peddled by many holocaust institutions,are solidly proven by revisionists to be hoaxes.Revisionists put more emphasis on gas chamber executions,Primarily because it has become the bread and butter accusation of Jewish supremecists.If it wasn't for this accusation at the Nuremberg trials,the allied forces would have had a harder time creating the Nazi monster killing machine,and convicting Germans for crimes that the allies were also guilty of themselves.What I am trying to get at here is when you say they can certainly prove it didn't take place in a manner in wich our children are taught today,is that to say that gas chamber executions are only partialy true?Are you saying maybe it happened,but not on a scale and manner or for the reasons in wich it is portrayed?

User avatar
Sannhet
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:12 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sannhet » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:21 pm)

code yellow wrote:Sannhet: As you are probably aware,there are other aspects involved in the holocaust,other types of crimes against humans, for instance shootings or the expulsions of Jews from Poland,that revisionists are perfectly willing to admit did indeed take place.Other aspects like lampshades and soap and the 6 million number that are clearly fabrications,but are still being peddled by many holocaust institutions,are solidly proven by revisionists to be hoaxes.Revisionists put more emphasis on gas chamber executions,Primarily because it has become the bread and butter accusation of Jewish supremecists.If it wasn't for this accusation at the Nuremberg trials,the allied forces would have had a harder time creating the Nazi monster killing machine,and convicting Germans for crimes that the allies were also guilty of themselves.What I am trying to get at here is when you say they can certainly prove it didn't take place in a manner in wich our children are taught today,is that to say that gas chamber executions are only partialy true?Are you saying maybe it happened,but not on a scale and manner or for the reasons in wich it is portrayed?

I am saying that if a revisionist can refute the phony Gas Chamber stories, and refute the 6 million number, it is only logical in any modern society to say, "if the crime cannot have been commited in the manner alleged, the accused cannot be convicted of the crime."
When schoolchildren are taught about the holocaust, there is no mention of executions by shooting, which definitely did take place, but they go on ad nauseum about the Gas Chambers, which in reality definitely did kill millions.......of lice
If the accepted story can be refuted, why has no judge had the courage to rule in favor of the Revisionists? Hannover says that it is a simple explanation as to why no judge has commited that blashphemy. Perhaps he is right, but I really cannot see why not one judge has accepted any Revisionist argument, despite compelling evidence. I think that it would be interesting to ask a Zundel or a Faurisson why they think no Revisionist has ever seen success in the Courthouse.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9763
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:15 pm)

Sannhet said:
When schoolchildren are taught about the holocaust, there is no mention of executions by shooting, which definitely did take place...

Certainly executions of illegal non-uniformed partisans, saboteurs, and infiltrators took place and was legal; both sides participated. But the absurd 1,000,000, - 2,000,000 alleged shootings of innocent Jews, supposedly by the Einsatzgruppen, are without any evidence whatsoever.

Were there occasional atrocities by Germans? Certainly, atrocities are unfortunately the norm for all wars throughout history. I say with confidence that the 'Allies' were responsible for far, far more atrocities than the Germans.

I suggest a search of 'einsatzgruppen' at this Forum for the many points made.

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

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:42 pm)

Were there occasional atrocities by Germans? Certainly, atrocities are unfortunately the norm for all wars throughout history. I say with confidence that the 'Allies' were responsible for far, far more atrocities than the Germans. :) I totaly agree.I'll bet if atrocities from all sides were weighed,Germans would be on the lower end of the totem pole.Wasn't there a judge at the Nuremberg trials who stated"The Germans fought the cleanest war of anyone."As for Sannhet,I have given an explaination as to why judges will not give a fair verdict to holocaust revisionism.They have their carears and lives as well as the lives of their families to consider.There are very influential and powerfull forces protecting the traditional holocaust hogwash,and they have enough power to unseat these judges and make their lives miserable.Although he was not a judge,look at what happened to Robert Fauriusson and David Cole.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests