Trojan
Muse
The gas chambers was just one method of murder employed by the Nazi's, it was not the only method
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust
- Thread starter dtugg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- holocaust denial
- Status
The gas chambers was just one method of murder employed by the Nazi's, it was not the only method
Trojan
Muse
Therefore we can not introduce the confessions of the Nazi's
Do I need to provide links?
Nobody? Really, this is the standard? If I choose to bury my head in the sand and dispute the bombing of Dresden, does that mean you have to prove it occurred?
The existence of gas chambers has been proven in warcrimes trial in various jurisdictions throughout the Western world. Just as they have now been proved by your own standards.
Last edited:
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
The gas chambers was just one method of murder employed by the Nazi's, it was not the only method
It was allegedly the main method.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Please do, there are only a handful of them, all commented in detailed by sites you don't like. And give quotes from these links you find interesting.
It was a stalinist showttrial. Even prominent American admitted as much. A true court should be independent and not run by the victors.
Last edited:
Trojan
Muse
No, it was not, that is just your ignorance of history talking.
Trojan
Muse
No, a criminal does not get to pick the standards of evidence used and who gets to try him.
A criminal is subject to the law of the land, not the law he wants.
Amazer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
I am seriously not getting the point you are trying to make...
However you twist and turn what happened to Jews and other undesirables under the Nazi regime; the simple fact remains that during those years a very large number of those Jews and undesirables went missing. The events that describe the Holocaust does a credible job in explaining how those people went 'missing'. It is backed up by mountains of evidence.
What do you have? As far as I can see you are trying to shift blame to the Allies for those deaths that did occur in the concentration camps. While it may make sense to you to assign blame to the allies, the fact remains that it was the Nazis that put the Jews (and other undesirables) in those camps, and as a result were responsible for the well being of those people. The failure to do so can only be assigned to the Nazis.
For the remaining 'missing' people you make the bare bones accusation that they must have moved east, without any supporting evidence that this actually happened.
All in all I have to conclude that your version of history is seriously flawed and that it needs a lot more corroborating evidence before I can consider it over the currently accepted version of history.
Really? Okay, do you then vouch for the veracity of the Adelaide Institute?
Evidence, evidence, evidence.. Oh my.. Have all you "skeptics" heard about induction? That's the stage before the evidence, the investigation phase. People on this board act like they are in a court of law, and that's fine for the most part, but would anyone like to claim that the sun won't rise tomorrow? No? Then it's because you rely on induction as oppsosed to evidence.. You anti-skeptics you! heh
Look, where there's crime, there's coverup (more induction). So you can't rely entirely on evidence in these cases, unless you're a bit daft. It's well known that evidence in crime scenarios will get twisted, hidden, planted etc etc, so get real.. You Americans stop defending the obvious WW2 exaggerations and grow some balls, and you 9/11 investigator, you see too much conspiracy imho. And also, your nationalism is tribal and primitive, but I like holland (and even USA) none the less
Look, where there's crime, there's coverup (more induction). So you can't rely entirely on evidence in these cases, unless you're a bit daft. It's well known that evidence in crime scenarios will get twisted, hidden, planted etc etc, so get real.. You Americans stop defending the obvious WW2 exaggerations and grow some balls, and you 9/11 investigator, you see too much conspiracy imho. And also, your nationalism is tribal and primitive, but I like holland (and even USA) none the less
You know, I suspect that if this paragraph had been at all meaningful, it would have been wrong.
Inductive evidence -- a set of previous examples -- are indeed evidence, even in a court of law. What they aren't is mathematical proof. But I don't think that anyone's been suggesting that the existence (or non-existence) of the Holocaust can be inferred from first principles without reference to any aspect of the real world, so that's not really relevant.
What is relevant is the tremendous amount of evidence that is available. And while we've seen numerous examples of attempts to twist and cover up this evidence, it's almost all on the part of the Holocaust deniers. If you (or anyone else) is suggesting a large-scale coverup to hide the fact that the Holocaust did not happen, or to fake the Holocaust,.... well, you're simply irrational. There's too much independent evidence to make such a coverup a realistic possibility.
Just some simple examples :
1) The various national census figures before and after the Second World War show that about 6 million Jews, in total, "disappeared." They existed in 1935 and were gone in 1945. How many different census officials would need to conspire together to cook the books in this way if it weren't true?
2) Train manifests from all over the Third Reich describe how many boxcars full of Jews were delivered to the various extermination camps, and how many empty boxcars left those same camps. If three-quarters of a million Jews were delivered to Treblinka (as the freight manifests show), where did they go? If they weren't, who forged all those freight manifests?
3) Why do the eyewitness reports of the mass crematorium operations at Auschwitz agree more or less exactly with the description in the patent documents for the operation of a mass crematorium, if there wasn't such a crematorium in operation at Auschwitz? How would this particular "conspiracy" have been coordinated?
et cetera, et cetera?
I submit that evidence is all you CAN rely on....
Thomas,
If you have a point, please make that point. The Socratic method is a horrible means of making your point in an internet forum. It will inevitably get sidetracked well before you get to your ultimate reveal. It also gives off the appearance of pedantry. You're better off just stating what your point is and the support for the point all in one post.
If you have a point, please make that point. The Socratic method is a horrible means of making your point in an internet forum. It will inevitably get sidetracked well before you get to your ultimate reveal. It also gives off the appearance of pedantry. You're better off just stating what your point is and the support for the point all in one post.
No, it's not. What's in the former post is a rhetorical question designed to lead up to your point. Classic Socratic method.
And, as was pointed out, the Socratic method doesn't work well on this type of discussion forum.
We're all sheeps for various things.. I can't stand nationalism tho, I consider it primitive, but that's about the only thing I'm not a sheep to myself.. And no, doc k, it was spelled out in that post.. And I find it curious that you first say that there is no such thing as induction within evidence, and then goes on to talk about inductive evidence. You're almost funnier than the stand up in the telly right now. And deserve to be treated with the same arrogance you treat others with yourself 
I've read your prior post again, and I can't fathom what point you're trying to make. As far as I can tell, you think 1) there are "obvious WW2 exaggerations" that we're defending, and 2) the evidence for the Holocaust might be faked, and that by demanding evidence we're not being particularly skeptical.
And I have no idea why whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not is analogous and/or relevant to whether the Holocaust occurred.
If that's not your point, then could you kindly restate your point in short clear sentences?
And I have no idea why whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not is analogous and/or relevant to whether the Holocaust occurred.
If that's not your point, then could you kindly restate your point in short clear sentences?
The point is simply that evidence isn't everything in the investigation phase, but that you also have to rely on inductive evidence in many cases. You're not judges in here, but qualify as investigators at best (and patriots at worst).
I'm not an expert on WW2, but I have read enough history to know that winners of wars always exaggerate the wrong-doings of the opposition to justify their murder and mayhem.
But before I call you Americans winners of WW2, then I think I should add that I consider your participation in the war to be so late, that's it's more like "kick em while their down".. The prize goes to Russia, England and the resistance movements, in my book.
I'm not an expert on WW2, but I have read enough history to know that winners of wars always exaggerate the wrong-doings of the opposition to justify their murder and mayhem.
But before I call you Americans winners of WW2, then I think I should add that I consider your participation in the war to be so late, that's it's more like "kick em while their down".. The prize goes to Russia, England and the resistance movements, in my book.
Really? I would find it curious, too.... if I had ever said anything of the sort..
My first sentence on the topic was to state that inductive evidence is a type of evidence.
Based on my reading of the inductive evidence so far,.... you're a Holocaust denier yourself, with poor reading skills, and too little testicular fortitude to admit to it.
- Status