It's a close shave

[code yellow]

The photo does not show that they are headed for a gas chamber,so this has to be proven,and there is no way Mr. Fleming can since you don't see where they are headed,so the captions statement is false.

The lack of information suggests the statement as unsupported by the evidence, to say that the caption is false implies some proof is offerred. Lack of evidence does not mean that there is no evidence - simply put, the evidence may not be available.

I had a book as a child about the lochness monster.In it was a photo of a shadowy figure in a lake.The caption said that the shadowy figure is the lochness monster,although you couldn't see it clearly.Should I aproach that as evidence not being availiable?

[code yellow]

To Trojan:Actualy, there was another photo in the book of a lake captioned,"The lake of the lochness monster sighting",with nothing in the lake.This would probably be more along the lines of evidence not being availiable.

[aemathisphd]

The mathematician in me simply cannot let this go without a correction.
Just because the gas chambers have never been shown to exist does NOT mean we know FOR A FACT that the people were NOT headed for the gas chambers! It is similar to claiming that we know for a fact the gas chambers do not exist because there is no evidence for the existence of gas chambers. That is simply false.

Correct. This is the fallacy of "begging the question," i.e., basing one's argument on assumptions not shared by everyone or on opinions and not facts.

a.m.

[Hannover]

So, in other words, you have no proof of gas chambers.

How about those amazing 'pits' which seem to have vanished, want to debate those?

"Gee your honor, I have nothing to support my case which claims mass murder in the millions, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen."
- 'holocau$t' Logic 101

- Just because none of the UFO/alien abductees can produce an alien or flying saucer doesn't mean they weren't abducted.

- Just because someone claiming to be a witch hasn't shown they can fly on a broom doesn't mean they can't.

Things are getting desperate for the faithful.

Hannover

[aemathisphd]

So, in other words, you have no proof of gas chambers.

No, I have plenty of proof. Do I have any that you will accept? No. Nobody does. I could have a letter from Hitler smeared with his DNA that says, "Kill the Jews. Use gas chambers among other means. Stop when you hit six million." Still, you'd dismiss it. You know you would.

Moderator, I am answering Hannover in the tone that he is using with me. He is baiting me, and I would appreciate it if you would have him stop.

How about those amazing 'pits' which seem to have vanished, want to debate those?

Sure. Start a thread. I'm game.

a.m.

[Hannover]

No, I have plenty of proof. Do I have any that you will accept? No. Nobody does.

What proof would that be? Be specific. Everything that you have presented so far has been refuted. You may not like it, but that's the facts.
good example:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=267

If 'baiting' means asking you direct questions and citing examples of your 'logic', then you just have problems with debate, plain & simple.

When the playing field is level in the 'holcaust' debate it's amazing the excuses that are offered up.

Regards, Hannover

[aemathisphd]

No, I have plenty of proof. Do I have any that you will accept? No. Nobody does.

What proof would that be? Be specific. Everything that you have presented so far has been refuted. You may not like it, but that's the facts.

And that, again, would be your opinion, Hannover, and not *fact*.

The *fact* is that no revisionist has been able to properly answer for the Vergasungskeller document.

The *fact* is that no revisionist has been able to show that Adolf Eichmann was coerced in any way in his testimony in Jerusalem.

The *fact* is that cyanide is on the walls of Krema II, even 60 years after it was blown up, and no revisionist has disproved this.

And the *fact* is that the three preceding facts corroborate what eyewitnesses have said about the Holocaust generally and Krema II specifically.

Incidentally, this:

So, in other words, you have no proof of gas chambers.

is not a question.

And, finally, Hannover, any basic logic primer would identify the vast majority of the arguments you put forth as begging the question. The minute you write, "Since we know there were no gas chambers..." you've already begged the question.

I have no problem with debating. I have problems with errors in logic and I intend to expose them wherever I see them. If I had a problem with debating, I would be here -- here of all places.

a.m.

[Hannover]

It's good we now have what you consider the best points from the story.

But, there all covered at this Forum; read and learn, or post to the threads and we'll chat.

Or start your own threads and bring your best shots.

Here, I'll help out, this might get you going:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1001

Don't forget the search function here for the others you mentioned.

- Hannover

[code yellow]

To aemathisphd No, I have plenty of proof. Do I have any that you will accept? No. Nobody does. I could have a letter from Hitler smeared with his DNA that says, "Kill the Jews. Use gas chambers among other means. Stop when you hit six million." Still, you'd dismiss it. You know you would.



You seem to be avoiding revisionist argument with empty,shallow"What if's.",typical of holocaust supporters.You are also creating a double standard.It is already a fact that no document has been discovered that proves a Hitler order for the extermination of jews,nor any document that reveals a plan to exterminate Europes jews.You seem to have a problem accepting that.I'd like to know why you insist on digging for mythical burried treasure?[/quote]

[Turpitz]

Code yellow,

If you want to quote something do this:

[uote] write or paste here what you want to quote,then do this [/quote]

See the first quote, I deliberately left the 'Q' out, so just add it in.

Simple

[aemathisphd]

You seem to be avoiding revisionist argument with empty,shallow"What if's.",typical of holocaust supporters.You are also creating a double standard.It is already a fact that no document has been discovered that proves a Hitler order for the extermination of jews,nor any document that reveals a plan to exterminate Europes jews.You seem to have a problem accepting that.I'd like to know why you insist on digging for mythical burried treasure?

You seem to have misunderstood my post to Hannover. I was indicating a hypothetical situation.

There's no need for "buried treasure"; the evidence speaks for itself.

a.m.

[code yellow]

To aemathis phd: I have yet to see a shred of evidence that the elleged gas chambers exist.I have,on the other hand,have seen much of the thin so-called evidence easily washed down the drain by scientific investigation.By stateing that you were just using a hypothetical situation,you are vaildating my point.Why would you need to make up a situation if everything accepted about the elleged gas chambers is so true?This seems to have been the standard course of action scince after the war by those who promote the gas chamber stories.

[rrohde]

... on a side note: It seems as if Hannover has found his counterpart "from the other side" in "aemathisphd"... I am eagerly following their posts... very, very interesting!

[Scott]

The *fact* is that no revisionist has been able to show that Adolf Eichmann was coerced in any way in his testimony in Jerusalem.

Well, other than the fact that he was kidnapped by a hostile foreign government and put on a stage for his life.

But there is no need to suggest from the Revisionist point of view that Eichmann was severely coerced. He simply recognized that a potential defense strategy that denied the "exterminationist legend," already recognized by previous trials as fact, had a snowball's chance in the Sinai. Eichmann tried to play up his role as mere cog in the Final Solution and to mitigate his part in it. In his trial he just arranged transport and didn't agree with exterminations and even tried to sabotage it. He was not of course interested in historical questions, as we are. And some of his worst problems came trying to distance himself from his previous statements, many of them tape recorded, as source material for a historical novel, with him as the key character of course.

[Moderator]

If folks want to talk about Eichmann, then do so....in a separate thread.

I believe there are threads here about him, or anyone can start a new one if they like.

aemathisphd, I deleted your last Eichamnn post. So, it seems that leaves the thread equal between you & Scott on Eichmann. Take that topic to different thread.

- Moderator